State Of The Union

[Stealth694]

Just for a change of pace,, what did you think of the State of the Union Address Yesterday??
Personally I thought it just more promises and little real planning or ideas behind it.

Comments everyone??

[steelish]

I thought it was obvious that Obama either isn't listening to the majority of the American public, or he heard them loud and clear and chooses to push forward with his agenda regardless.

He stated things that are blatantly untrue.


"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."
Um, nope. I definitely wouldn't say that the worst of the storm has PASSED. He has put us even further in debt, spending more than any administration in history. Our unemployment (which he stated would not fall below 8% if we passed the Stimulus bill), is now over 10% and projected to go lower.


"I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages."
Now this one, I liked! This is a good idea.


"Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act."
Trust me, I live in the area. This is something that will rarely get used. Parking is abysmal where they are going to put the railway's station. (Ybor City) There is already an aquarium there, along with the port of Tampa and it's where cruise ships set out. There are several parking garages, but the only way to add parking is for the City to simply kick out some of the businesses and build more garages. This has already been voted against by the citizens here, yet now they're moving forward with it. No one is going to want to fight for parking, pay to park, pay to ride the train...only to shave off 20 minutes to the drive time. (Then they still have to pay to get into Disney, where the other end of the railway will be)


"We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America."
Exports of what? To where? Are we guaranteed that there are buyers for double the exports?


On health care: "Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
That's because the longer it was debated, the more the people realized that what was written into the bill is not altogether a good thing. And more speeches from you explaining the bill even more won't help!


"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal,... "
Nope, this is not in our Constitution, it's in our Bill of Rights - and he knows this, or should, since he studied the Constitution during college.

[steelish]

There's more I could say, but I have things to do...a life to live!

[denuseri]

I recorded the speech, but havent had a chance to watch it yet, so I will have to get back to you on my perspective Stealth.

[steelish]

is now over 10% and projected to go lower.

Ooops! it's projected to go HIGHER. Duh. See what happens when you're in a hurry and have a ton of things to do?!

[denuseri]

I was going to do a point by point posting a copy of the entire speech, but that effort however thorough is too large to place in any single post.
All of the following quotes are taken from the excerpt of the President’s State of the Union Address provided by The White House, Office of the Press Secretary’s online release.
I am not going to bother going over the “fluff” parts where he makes the standard rally cry or tries to explain away his difficulties by blaming the previous administration or makes empty attempts to appear more like the average citizen instead of the average politician, they do make up the bulk of his speech, but really don’t address anything as to the state of our union except pointing out how much wool we have allowed our politicians to pull over our eyes.

“One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."

But he is going to start off with a lie? The worst has passed? Last time I checked things have gotten worse. Unemployment has risen and the deficit has only increased.

“For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now. “

Seems like? WTF… Try “IS”, “Wall street” is the only one being helped and rewarded and they got us into this mess to begin with! And he is the primary one behind doing the rewarding at that. It took him a year to figure out we are sick of partisanship and poverty? Or is he just sounding like he wants us to cooperate? Remember this is the same man who set up a podium and teleprompters to address a classroom of middle school students.
His solution for fixing the economy is based completely upon the former administrations? I told ya all that he wasn’t going to change anything a long time ago but follow in his predecessors footsteps because he lacked the experience to do anything else.

“Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis”

He purposes charging the Banks a modest fee and extending unemployment. I have nothing against that; I didn’t want the banks or Wall Street to get one red cent to begin with. But I do purpose that his modest fee isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans, in the end he will cave to the bigwigs. He also claims to have cut taxes, yet, I didn’t see any reduction whatsoever in my taxes. I wonder who is getting all these magical tax cuts. So far apparently lies and dam lies make the wheels of his speech go round and round.
Truth be told He didn’t raised income taxes, but, he sure hasn’t done anything to stop the raise in prices on home insurance, property tax mil rates, or the price of gas and power. Every single bill I pay for regular day to day living in those regards has done nothing but went up, in some cases doubled…like groceries.
As for all these magical new jobs I haven’t seen any of them yet.

“The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill.”

Again WTF! Let’s use the same plan that hasn’t been working to fix things? They won’t even hire more “strippers” at the club where I had to go back to dancing at to make ends meet so I could stay in school.

“So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.”

Talk is cheap; I will believe this one when I see it. He should have given all of the stimulus money to the small business to begin with.

”Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. “

I am all for that. Let’s rebuild the entire infrastructure of the country. Now show me where and how you plan to pay for it.
The Tampa High-speed Railroad is his corner stone? Who exactly is paying for that? He already has me dancing naked for drunks to pay for school, I can’t afford to pay for his toy train that no one in Tampa wants. How about you spend that money to rebuild the failing roads instead and make cheaper cars that don’t use fossil fuels. A statewide mass transit system isn’t a feasible solution on the scale it would take in a state like Florida.

“We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America.”

OK here I agree, I am all for converting my home to not have to rely on the power or water companies and keep our business from running off to other countries just so they can increase their own profit margin. To bad that goes directly against the water and power companies wishes not to mention the big foreign investors; gee I wonder how much money he thinks I have to do all this, will I have to go into porn to pay for it.

“Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks.”

Blinks! Punishing the banks?!?, no of course not, we know how much he loves them….because he rewarded them!!!

“It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”

Allmost spit up my coffee......My, oh my how he has changed his tune here, looks like big oil and coal have their fingers deep into his pockets now.

Then after saying what every other president before him since Regan has said about the economy about increasing exports and fostering growth he goes into education.

“To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans.”

So much for what little bit of government money I can get for school, porn is looking better and better.

“ Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants.”

Good luck getting through the four year peerage and liberal indoctrination system our colleges have become.

I must give him credit for saying we need to re-vamp the insurance industry. Fat chance of that actually happening, I bet coal and oil are not the only ones with their fingers up his ass.

“But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know”

Dozens of things have been purposed only to be shot down. How about we leave Iraq and Afghanistan like he promised in the first place we would do, and re-focus our military’s direction on self defense and re-building the infrastructure for a little while. Then use some of that massive excess in the defense budget used on offensive initiatives and strategic deterrence (provided by our taxes) to really stimulate internally organized growth and development. The amount spent on bonuses alone last year would be enough to pay off almost every single mortgage in the USA. Just think how much extra money that would put into the play.
I am in agreement with the “freeze” as well as going through the budget and cutting programs out. But I think that’s not enough, he has entire divisions of government that need to be cut or reorganized.

“Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”

Careful here, he is suggesting that if our elected officials do not agree to do it his way, that he is going to do it anyway somehow. Dangerous ground people and it’s exactly this kind of thing that led the Republic upon which we based our own to end up under the tyranny of an empire.

“Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new.”

Like what? Sidestepping our political systems check and balances through executive orders?

Oh wait I know something that will change things.

Next election we have…if a candidate is listed as a republican or a democrat, we just simply wont vote for them at all and instead throw our support to one of the other people who have been trying to get in who are from a whole different party or are independent with real fresh ideas as opposed to the same ole two party tug of war!

"It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. “

How about this, we don’t allow monetary political contributions at all!

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Wait a second; didn’t he himself get elected this very way? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with the Courts decision. I just wanted to point out the inherent irony this time. Allowing corporations to openly spend as much as they wish just brings what has been going on anyway out into the open. But again I say we shouldn’t allow money into the process at all!

“Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.”

The whole two party only thing wouldn’t be nearly as polarized if the media wasn’t feeding off building tension where it wasn’t and excluding representation of other views; which is something I am sure they will do reverently once they start “spinning” this speech into what they want it to say.

“But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day”.

Including the day he gave this speech.


Then he gets to the War stuff.

“Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons”. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.”

In other words he means that he is perfectly willing to continue following in his predecessor’s footsteps and go even further, especially if he can convince the Russians and Chinese to back our hegemony if we decide to invade either of these two so called forces of “evil”.
Then he goes on to say why he supports American imperialism all the while calling it something else and window dressing it under the veil of democracy. Sounds surprisingly like the speeches given by different Archons when Athenians formed their own empire except our banner is supposed to be civil rights violations.

“Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation. “

My personal response to the television at this point was: “Well then get on with it, just try and not fuck us anymore than you already have!”

Talk is cheap, no more is that proved ironically true and false than with politicians, true because what little that comes out of their mouth is true, false because what does roll out of their mouth is all too often not cheap, at least not for those of us who end up paying for their gibber jabber.

I really want to be wrong, to be mistaken and believe that our “beloved” leader really is magically endowed and that his natural penchance for mendacity as a politician is a misconception on my part.

Though I must say nothing in his speech on the state of our Union has shown me that I should be hopeful in any way what so ever.

[steelish]

The State of the Union addresses can be found here (http://stateoftheunionaddress.org/), and they have them all, way back to Washington's. For contrast, try reading Ronald Reagan's address. He left Americans with patriotic feelings, wanting to do more for our country. Obama's speech, by comparison, leaves Americans feeling as if we are the enemy of the government.

Now, just from that alone, who do you think is the President who inspires pride in the country...the one who makes American men and women want to serve for their country? Obama even isolated the Supreme Court and the Senate during his speech, making them seem like the enemy (of the administration, not of the people). He obviously, by his words during the speech and his actions during his first year, has an agenda that he is determined to see through no matter who or what stands in his way.

[DuncanONeil]

And taught Constitutional law.
Yet he has been heard to saw that the Constitution is "fundamentally flawed"


I thought it was obvious that Obama either isn't listening to the majority of the American public, or he heard them loud and clear and chooses to push forward with his agenda regardless.

He stated things that are blatantly untrue.


"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."
Um, nope. I definitely wouldn't say that the worst of the storm has PASSED. He has put us even further in debt, spending more than any administration in history. Our unemployment (which he stated would not fall below 8% if we passed the Stimulus bill), is now over 10% and projected to go lower.


"I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages."
Now this one, I liked! This is a good idea.


"Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act."
Trust me, I live in the area. This is something that will rarely get used. Parking is abysmal where they are going to put the railway's station. (Ybor City) There is already an aquarium there, along with the port of Tampa and it's where cruise ships set out. There are several parking garages, but the only way to add parking is for the City to simply kick out some of the businesses and build more garages. This has already been voted against by the citizens here, yet now they're moving forward with it. No one is going to want to fight for parking, pay to park, pay to ride the train...only to shave off 20 minutes to the drive time. (Then they still have to pay to get into Disney, where the other end of the railway will be)


"We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America."
Exports of what? To where? Are we guaranteed that there are buyers for double the exports?


On health care: "Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
That's because the longer it was debated, the more the people realized that what was written into the bill is not altogether a good thing. And more speeches from you explaining the bill even more won't help!


"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal,... "
Nope, this is not in our Constitution, it's in our Bill of Rights - and he knows this, or should, since he studied the Constitution during college.

[DuncanONeil]

[I][COLOR="Pink"]Seems like? WTF… Try “IS”, “Wall street” is the only one being helped and rewarded and they got us into this mess to begin with! And he is the primary one behind doing the rewarding at that. It took him a year to figure out we are sick of partisanship and poverty? Or is he just sounding like he wants us to cooperate? Remember this is the same man who set up a podium and teleprompters to address a classroom of middle school students.
His solution for fixing the economy is based completely upon the former administrations? I told ya all that he wasn’t going to change anything a long time ago but follow in his predecessors footsteps because he lacked the experience to do anything else.

[B]
Don't forget the insurance companies, the auto companies. And the sweet deals the unions got, both in the auto buyout and health insurance!

[DuncanONeil]

[i] “our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis”

he purposes charging the banks a modest fee and extending unemployment. I have nothing against that; i didn’t want the banks or wall street to get one red cent to begin with. But i do purpose that his modest fee isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans, in the end he will cave to the bigwigs.
[b]
many of the banks that received tarp wanted nothing to do with it. They were forced to take monies they did not need and pay interest for the "privilege". Virtually all of the banks have already repaid the government. Yet the claim is that they need to pay a fee, set at 40%, to ensure all of the monies paid out are returned. Looks like the banks are going to have to fork over more money to pay for the cars!

truth be told he didn’t raised income taxes,

but has no compunction against raising taxes on businesses. But who pays those taxes?


again wtf! Let’s use the same plan that hasn’t been working to fix things? They won’t even hire more “strippers” at the club where i had to go back to dancing at to make ends meet so i could stay in school.

the president's position on "stimulus is that it saved 2,000,000 jobs and the only reason we have the problems we still have is they did not spend enough. Know anybody that hires on main street that got money and hired?


talk is cheap; i will believe this one when i see it. He should have given all of the stimulus money to the small business to begin with.

can we call this tarp ii?

i am all for that. Let’s rebuild the entire infrastructure of the country. Now show me where and how you plan to pay for it.
The tampa high-speed railroad is his corner stone? Who exactly is paying for that? He already has me dancing naked for drunks to pay for school, i can’t afford to pay for his toy train that no one in tampa wants. How about you spend that money to rebuild the failing roads instead and make cheaper cars that don’t use fossil fuels. A statewide mass transit system isn’t a feasible solution on the scale it would take in a state like florida.

high speed rail, in a country like ours is a laudable goal. But government controlled? Think amtrak. Things like this work when it is convenient for joe citizen, and george boss can make a dollar providing the service. What is not understood about rail is that as a user you can only go where the rails go. Something decided by someone else. Once i looked into taking the family to las vegas. Didn't want to drive and air fare was too high. Bus took two days (don't remember the cost), train took three days, cost as much as air, and we arrived in vegas by bus from california! Ended up driving, day and a half. Definitely less than cost of train and plane and quicker than bus.

ok here i agree, i am all for converting my home to not have to rely on the power or water companies and keep our business from running off to other countries just so they can increase their own profit margin. To bad that goes directly against the water and power companies wishes not to mention the big foreign investors; gee i wonder how much money he thinks i have to do all this, will i have to go into porn to pay for it.

my power company has brought up the issue of getting power from green sources. They are asking me to voluntarily increase the money i give them for that purpose.
A plan already exists that would not only bring all those companies that left home but would have a bunch of foreign companies moving their operations here. It is called fairtax. All those off shore bank accounts would come home as well!

blinks! Punishing the banks?!?, no of course not, we know how much he loves them….because he rewarded them!!!

you don't think the fee to pay back government funds given to other indusrties is a punishment!?!?

allmost spit up my coffee......my, oh my how he has changed his tune here, looks like big oil and coal have their fingers deep into his pockets now.

how else do you expect to reduce dependence on foreign oil? Btw you do know we export oil?

so much for what little bit of government money i can get for school, porn is looking better and better.

good luck getting through the four year peerage and liberal indoctrination system our colleges have become.

but then if you can't pay off your loans in 20 years they will be forgiven, is that not a subsidy? Why only ten years if you go into government service?

i must give him credit for saying we need to re-vamp the insurance industry. Fat chance of that actually happening, i bet coal and oil are not the only ones with their fingers up his ass.

i believe that is what the health bill is supposed to be. Too bad it is so bad!

careful here, he is suggesting that if our elected officials do not agree to do it his way, that he is going to do it anyway somehow. Dangerous ground people and it’s exactly this kind of thing that led the republic upon which we based our own to end up under the tyranny of an empire.

you do realize that executive orders only apply to executive agencies?

like what? Sidestepping our political systems check and balances through executive orders?

Oh wait i know something that will change things.

Next election we have…if a candidate is listed as a republican or a democrat, we just simply wont vote for them at all and instead throw our support to one of the other people who have been trying to get in who are from a whole different party or are independent with real fresh ideas as opposed to the same ole two party tug of war!

it really would be refreshing to see a new manner of business. A year ago the president said no more earmarks and then signed a bill chock full of them! I agree fire them all!!!

how about this, we don’t allow monetary political contributions at all!

then all you are going to get is the likes of herb kohl or maybe even george soros!

wait a second; didn’t he himself get elected this very way? Don’t get me wrong, i don’t agree with the courts decision. I just wanted to point out the inherent irony this time. Allowing corporations to openly spend as much as they wish just brings what has been going on anyway out into the open. But again i say we shouldn’t allow money into the process at all!

it is wrong for corporations to spend funds on issues but perfectly correct for unions to do so? Don't you see a free speech issue here?

the whole two party only thing wouldn’t be nearly as polarized if the media wasn’t feeding off building tension where it wasn’t and excluding representation of other views; which is something i am sure they will do reverently once they start “spinning” this speech into what they want it to say.

or staking a position for the candidate they prefer instead of actually reporting the issues!

including the day he gave this speech.

the president has been campaigning for his job for a little over three years now!

in other words he means that he is perfectly willing to continue following in his predecessor’s footsteps and go even further, especially if he can convince the russians and chinese to back our hegemony if we decide to invade either of these two so called forces of “evil”.

i believe this is called diplomacy. I do not know about iran but i do know that kim il can qualify as evil.
then he goes on to say why he supports american imperialism all the while calling it something else and window dressing it under the veil of democracy. Sounds surprisingly like the speeches given by different archons when athenians formed their own empire except our banner is supposed to be civil rights violations.

imperialism!? How so?

0123456789

[steelish]

how else do you expect to reduce dependence on foreign oil? Btw you do know we export oil?

and did you also know that we export enough that if we kept it for ourselves we would reduce our oil dependency GREATLY. The only reason it's exported is for foreign relations.


but then if you can't pay off your loans in 20 years they will be forgiven, is that not a subsidy? Why only ten years if you go into government service?

Ah...they have you there. The next logical step to this equation is those that get loans and plan to go into government service to pay them off will be "asked" to get specific degrees determined by the government.

[VaAugusta]

I was disappointed he didn't list of our enemies and then proceed on how we will deal with them.

[steelish]

I was disappointed he didn't list of our enemies and then proceed on how we will deal with them.

Oh, but he did! (if you are one of those who believe he views the average American citizen as the "enemy")

[SadisticNature]

It's funny how people are quick to call one side a liar over several statements they make and then respond with lies of their own.

As for government control, at least it gives the possibility of selling off assets at a later date. The last thing you want is a country that is trillions of dollars in debt to start giving handouts for private run infrastructure.

I agree that the US education system (K-12) is in shambles and won't be fixed by the Obama bills which also violate the 10th amendment.

I also agree that the US college costs are absurd, and the financing is terrible.

And actually the reason oil is exported in such large countries is that governments have made things called free trade agreements so companies sell wherever they make the most profit. The US government as an organization is not taking oil from the US strategic reserve exporting it to other countries and then buying oil from elsewhere to replenish it. Companies like Exxon are selling oil to the highest bidder, which is often abroad.

As for statewide mass transit its a much harder problem in Canada where provinces are bigger, yet some achievements have been made on that front. The fact is taxpayers are a diverse bunch, I'm sure people who live in downtown cores and don't drive would be willing to express just as much outrage at your idea that their tax dollars should pay for your roads. The fact is taxes come from a diverse group of people with diverse interests, and that diversity means there will be government programs you don't approve of.

As for 'punishing' the banks, it is an established fact that the interest on government loans was well below market value and it is also clearly shown on financial statements for Q3 from major banks that the vast majority of banks relent the money at a sizable profit. Why should the government not charge fees for organizations that exaggerated and caused a crisis, demanded a government bailout, then used it to pad profits. I actually think the government should be looking into criminal charges relating to negligence in causing the recession. I'm fairly sure that many of these companies failed their own risk management checks frequently, and then promptly modified the formulas so they'd pass. Instead of using the academic standard, they are all using variants that don't actually mitigate risk but claim to. If that's not criminal negligence and fraud I don't know what is.

[denuseri]

I think whatever bad moves he made in the State of the Union Address are going to be overshadowed by his Q&A with the Republicans in Baltimore.

Personally he put some hope back into me about him with the gesture. Even if I am still reluctant to trust him, once bitten twice shy they say.

Is it possible that he really has gotten the message, is he really willing to work together with his opponents and find common ground. I shall not hold my breath but I so want to hope that both parties can put their differences aside and stop making apeals to their respective bases out of fear over re-election.

In any event I give him kudos for it and I thought he did way better imho at Baltimore than he did with his address.

Time will tell ultimately.

[steelish]

As for statewide mass transit its a much harder problem in Canada where provinces are bigger, yet some achievements have been made on that front. The fact is taxpayers are a diverse bunch, I'm sure people who live in downtown cores and don't drive would be willing to express just as much outrage at your idea that their tax dollars should pay for your roads. The fact is taxes come from a diverse group of people with diverse interests, and that diversity means there will be government programs you don't approve of.

The fact is; Floridians voted on this. It was on a ballot. The citizens of the state voted NO. It was voted down. That is the fact. Now they are going through with it regardless.


Why should the government not charge fees for organizations that exaggerated and caused a crisis, demanded a government bailout, then used it to pad profits.

The banks did exactly what the government REQUIRED them to do...give high risk loans to people the banks knew full well could not afford them. As a result, the housing market crashed and the banks started to fail. They didn't demand a bailout (not all of them, some of them tried to refuse it) and now they're being made out as the bad guy in all this. Mainstream media is not helping to get the facts out there either.

[SadisticNature]

Please feel free to include your evidence on the government requiring the banks to give loans they did not desire to give. My recollection seems to be banks actively lobbying to be able to extend further credit, not complaining about the government forcing them to. See various exemptions that were the result of direct appeals to the Bush administration, most notably Bear Stearns.

[SadisticNature]

Also keep in mind we haven't seen versions of the bills that Obama actually wants to finalize and sign off on. We've seen attempts by the senate and house to put all sorts of special interests through. Maybe Obama will refuse to sign bills that violate certain campaign promises.

[SadisticNature]

The citizens voted to not do it with state funds. If the federal government is supplying money to do this or no money at all then I'm fairly sure they'd vote for this.

Furthermore its a different story when its part of a national rail plan.

High speed rail exclusive to a small piece of Florida is very different from high speed rail all over the country with a long term plan of connected routes.

[steelish]

The citizens voted to not do it with state funds. If the federal government is supplying money to do this or no money at all then I'm fairly sure they'd vote for this.

They're giving us state funds to get it started, those funds do not include upkeep, building more parking garages, added police to direct traffic during heavy volume, or revamping the roads surrounding the stations.

I scrolled up after posting the above sentence and saw your other responses, including the one about banks. I'll reply after work. I have to leave in less than one minute, otherwise I would reply now. I had a very large post about this very thing (which no one seemed to be able to rebut) but it was wiped out during the big library crash.

[TwistedTails]

Just for a change of pace,, what did you think of the State of the Union Address Yesterday??
Personally I thought it just more promises and little real planning or ideas behind it.

Comments everyone??

I think he took too long and spent far too much money to say ..
it's really bad, we're fucked.

[steelish]

Please feel free to include your evidence on the government requiring the banks to give loans they did not desire to give. My recollection seems to be banks actively lobbying to be able to extend further credit, not complaining about the government forcing them to. See various exemptions that were the result of direct appeals to the Bush administration, most notably Bear Stearns.

I've provided links to the sources:


During the Carter administration, government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/01/us/racial-pattern-is-found-in-boston-mortgages.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, (http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/) empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines (http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf) instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807) could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities? Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=most_emailed_day), Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained (http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=discussion&code=cotn%3AFNM&it=ye&action=detail&id=2395631) that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train.

[oww-that-hurt]

I am so speechless that I don't know how to say what I want to say.

How can our government blow so much smoke up our ass and tell us it is good for us and not to worry about this near-4 trillion dollar budget?

Obama should be a used-car salesman at 'Slick Sam's' or something, the way he can stand there in a speech and say what he does into the camera as straight-faced as if he were telling us that sunrise will occur at 8:11 AM in Montana tomorrow.

Thanks, guys, for taking your valuable time to write about such important matters.

[SadisticNature]

I'll agree that the federal banking acts tend to be terrible, and that the links to those reports blame bankers for discrimination. This of course begs the question, if the bankers aren't actually fixing the discrimination problem by issuing bad loans, how did this cause the crisis? You can't both have your cake and eat it to. Your reports indicated that bankers are still denying loans to blacks at a disproportionately high rate, which means they are not making the high risk loans the ridiculous law would suggest. Ergo, this did not cause the financial crisis.

I point to the specific actions where the worst collapses in the crunch were by organizations that specifically requested overrides of debt limits that were already unreasonable and unsafe, not to comply with specific policies but to pad the bottom line.

As for Reagan, he started the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves, leading directly to the absurdly large $10+ trillion deficit that the US now faces. This has been shown to be false in every country in the world where it has been applied. That being said its nice to pay less taxes, after all it won't be your problem when the government goes bankrupt.

[steelish]

I'll agree that the federal banking acts tend to be terrible, and that the links to those reports blame bankers for discrimination. This of course begs the question, if the bankers aren't actually fixing the discrimination problem by issuing bad loans, how did this cause the crisis? You can't both have your cake and eat it to. Your reports indicated that bankers are still denying loans to blacks at a disproportionately high rate, which means they are not making the high risk loans the ridiculous law would suggest. Ergo, this did not cause the financial crisis.

????????

Because issuing bad loans IS the cause of the crisis. It doesn't matter whether or not it "fixed" discrimination. The fact remains that the banks were coerced into making loans that they well knew the recipients would default on.

Just because the government's ambitious goal of eliminating discrimination may or may not have worked has no bearing on the end result.

[steelish]

This (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) should scare any Americans reading this forum.

[SadisticNature]

You linked me to an article that shows bankers failed to comply with the regulation. If the bankers are failing to comply with the regulation they aren't making the ridiculous loans it stipulates. So the crisis isn't being caused by bankers being forced to make loans they don't want to make, due to a regulation they aren't complying with.

If the bankers actually complied with the regulation and made the bad loans that then defaulted then I could agree. But the evidence you've given shows that they didn't. So I don't see how people somehow magically defaulted on these loans that were never made.

[DuncanONeil]

and did you also know that we export enough that if we kept it for ourselves we would reduce our oil dependency GREATLY. The only reason it's exported is for foreign relations.

I can buy that!




Ah...they have you there. The next logical step to this equation is those that get loans and plan to go into government service to pay them off will be "asked" to get specific degrees determined by the government.

I believe I saw somewhere that the administration is already heading in that direction. With an increase in forgiveness for getting a degree in a "green" field.

[DuncanONeil]

It's funny how people are quick to call one side a liar over several statements they make and then respond with lies of their own.
Explain!!!


As for government control, at least it gives the possibility of selling off assets at a later date. The last thing you want is a country that is trillions of dollars in debt to start giving handouts for private run infrastructure.
That is nothing short of nationalization! And what gives rise to the cry of leading us to socialism.


I agree that the US education system (K-12) is in shambles and won't be fixed by the Obama bills which also violate the 10th amendment.
Much of what Obama wants to can be said to viloate that amendment!


I also agree that the US college costs are absurd, and the financing is terrible.
But is more Government handouts the solution. First insurance companies, banks, auto, and now universities???


And actually the reason oil is exported in such large countries is that governments have made things called free trade agreements so companies sell wherever they make the most profit. The US government as an organization is not taking oil from the US strategic reserve exporting it to other countries and then buying oil from elsewhere to replenish it. Companies like Exxon are selling oil to the highest bidder, which is often abroad.
Therefore, by your estimation the US would be exporting every drop of oil it can produce. Well such is not the case. Exports only account for about 12.5% of production!


As for statewide mass transit its a much harder problem in Canada where provinces are bigger, yet some achievements have been made on that front. The fact is taxpayers are a diverse bunch, I'm sure people who live in downtown cores and don't drive would be willing to express just as much outrage at your idea that their tax dollars should pay for your roads. The fact is taxes come from a diverse group of people with diverse interests, and that diversity means there will be government programs you don't approve of.
Does not address the question raised. By this argument nobody should give a rats ... and let NAMBLA do as it sees fit!


As for 'punishing' the banks, it is an established fact that the interest on government loans was well below market value and it is also clearly shown on financial statements for Q3 from major banks that the vast majority of banks relent the money at a sizable profit. Why should the government not charge fees for organizations that exaggerated and caused a crisis, demanded a government bailout, then used it to pad profits. I actually think the government should be looking into criminal charges relating to negligence in causing the recession. I'm fairly sure that many of these companies failed their own risk management checks frequently, and then promptly modified the formulas so they'd pass. Instead of using the academic standard, they are all using variants that don't actually mitigate risk but claim to. If that's not criminal negligence and fraud I don't know what is.
Most all of the banks have already paid back the Government for the monies, that many were forced to take and pay for the privilege. A fee is to be assessed to the banks on top of this to recover funds that other entities are not paying, and likely never will. This is a punishment. There is adequate evidence that the entity that caused the "crisis" was in fact Congress. Therefore all the remedies you espouse are do to Congress more than the banks. Kind of hard to stay within a risk management level when the Government demands that you engage in activities that such programs were say are ill considered.

[DuncanONeil]

But even in Baltimore he was still adamant that his way was the only way to go. Means that he still believes in the Democrat ideal of compromise. Democrats hold the line and the Republicans compromise!


I think whatever bad moves he made in the State of the Union Address are going to be overshadowed by his Q&A with the Republicans in Baltimore.

Personally he put some hope back into me about him with the gesture. Even if I am still reluctant to trust him, once bitten twice shy they say.

Is it possible that he really has gotten the message, is he really willing to work together with his opponents and find common ground. I shall not hold my breath but I so want to hope that both parties can put their differences aside and stop making apeals to their respective bases out of fear over re-election.

In any event I give him kudos for it and I thought he did way better imho at Baltimore than he did with his address.

Time will tell ultimately.

[steelish]

You linked me to an article that shows bankers failed to comply with the regulation.

It in no way shape or form shows that bankers failed to comply with the regulation. What it shows is that the government's misguided attempts to "equal the playing field" amongst ethnicities didn't work. The banks did comply. They gave loans to people who could not afford the loans, the banks didn't discriminate while doing so. The government's attempts to "spread the wealth" of homeownership backfired, as does much of what they attempt to do "for" the citizens of the U.S.

They need to quit trying to "take care of us" and simply be the government that the founding fathers designed.

[SadisticNature]

I don't see how exporting 12.5% means that I'm wrong about this. Most of the time the most profitable contract will be in the US because the transport costs are far lower. Also markets fluctuate wildly, so sometimes it will be profitable to sell abroad.

Nothing I said earlier says that the US would sell every drop of oil abroad, just that they are allowed to under free trade agreements, and thus will when they have the economic incentive to do so.

I'm frequently responding to arguments on this board of the form "As a taxpayer I believe X therefore the government should support X." yet when I point out that there are also taxpayers who believe the opposite of X you dismiss it as irrelevant. My argument is not that the government should support X or the opposite, its rather that if you want to argue the government has an obligation to support only services a particular taxpayer is willing to pay for then the government can't provide any services at all because for every service there exists a taxpayer who wouldn't want to pay for it. Some criminals pay taxes (they don't want to go down like Capone did), I'm sure they'd be happy if every level of government spent $0 on police. Similarly for arsonists and fire departments, etc..

As for reading of various national documents, people can't even agree on what those are or what mandates they provide.

For instance, I don't see how any US document gives the federal government a mandate to occupy a foreign country after already having declared victory in the war for which those troops were present.

If an American citizen has an entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does the entitlement to life include medically necessary care? If so, since the government is responsible for providing said right, are they responsible for compensating the health care providers for it?

What does a right of freedom of speech even mean for Americans? You live in a country where the chief justice of the supreme court sent war protesters to jail for protesting a war with the oft quoted line "Freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre." yet freedom of speech supports KKK marches. You live in a country where leftist discussions lead to the McCarthy witch hunts and the shameful trial of Oppenheimer under the Eisenhower administration, yet freedom of speech supports neo-nazi demonstrations. It seems to me your governments and courts have a long history of acting in violation of the rights afforded to you by your fancy paper documents.

[DuncanONeil]

Banks had a procedure of evaluating the risk of loans. They also conducted this assessment along a geographic area. Certain areas were seen to be at a very high level of risk. Hence banks were reluctant to loan into properties in those areas. The process came to have the term redlining attached to it. (Hey maybe we ought to attach that term to FICO scores! Then all of could qualify for loans!) Specific groups attacked this process of the business of banking, to limit its risk, as unfair and biased. One of the lawyers that took this issue to court, just happens to be, The current President of the USA. Anyway Congress became involved, and with court rulings, passed legislation to require banks to eliminate all such analysis and loan no matter the risk to anyone that asked. It took some 30 to 35 years for the result of this Congressional intervention in business to become known. It was clear to everyone by the end of 2008. But by then it had been forgotten was the catalytic event had been. And the banks took the heat for doing what they were told to do.



Please feel free to include your evidence on the government requiring the banks to give loans they did not desire to give. My recollection seems to be banks actively lobbying to be able to extend further credit, not complaining about the government forcing them to. See various exemptions that were the result of direct appeals to the Bush administration, most notably Bear Stearns.
See the above paragraph.

What do you have to say about the Government forcing banks that did not need or want TARP to take the money?

[DuncanONeil]

On what subject?


Also keep in mind we haven't seen versions of the bills that Obama actually wants to finalize and sign off on. We've seen attempts by the senate and house to put all sorts of special interests through. Maybe Obama will refuse to sign bills that violate certain campaign promises.

[DuncanONeil]

You think this is not going to require state funds?
What rock have you been living under?


The citizens voted to not do it with state funds. If the federal government is supplying money to do this or no money at all then I'm fairly sure they'd vote for this.

Furthermore its a different story when its part of a national rail plan.

High speed rail exclusive to a small piece of Florida is very different from high speed rail all over the country with a long term plan of connected routes.

[DuncanONeil]

i think he took too long and spent far too much money to say ..
It's really bad, we're fucked; so lets make it worse!.








0123456789

[DuncanONeil]

He essential is a used car salesman. But rather than go into that field he chose "community organizer". Which appears to be how he views his current job.


I am so speechless that I don't know how to say what I want to say.

How can our government blow so much smoke up our ass and tell us it is good for us and not to worry about this near-4 trillion dollar budget?

Obama should be a used-car salesman at 'Slick Sam's' or something, the way he can stand there in a speech and say what he does into the camera as straight-faced as if he were telling us that sunrise will occur at 8:11 AM in Montana tomorrow.

Thanks, guys, for taking your valuable time to write about such important matters.

[DuncanONeil]

I'll agree that the federal banking acts tend to be terrible, and that the links to those reports blame bankers for discrimination. This of course begs the question, if the bankers aren't actually fixing the discrimination problem by issuing bad loans, how did this cause the crisis? You can't both have your cake and eat it to. Your reports indicated that bankers are still denying loans to blacks at a disproportionately high rate, which means they are not making the high risk loans the ridiculous law would suggest. Ergo, this did not cause the financial crisis.
I believe this is referred to as denial!


I point to the specific actions where the worst collapses in the crunch were by organizations that specifically requested overrides of debt limits that were already unreasonable and unsafe, not to comply with specific policies but to pad the bottom line.
Do not know what your source is but it sounds a lot like wishful thinking to protect the real perp.


As for Reagan, he started the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves, leading directly to the absurdly large $10+ trillion deficit that the US now faces. This has been shown to be false in every country in the world where it has been applied. That being said its nice to pay less taxes, after all it won't be your problem when the government goes bankrupt.
Simple statements with no support. A logical look at this should suffice. If people have more of the money they worked for then they can choose what to do with that money; save it, spend it, invest it. In each case this money creates work for someone, that work generates income that income is taxed. since there is an increase in income then the revenues to the Government increase.
The greatest cause for Government income problems is the fact that there is no restraint on the Government checkbook. Would you not love the ability to increase you credit line if you were getting close to that limit? Even under the current conditions, when any sane person would realize that income is down and the need to cut spending the Government is doing just the opposite! Where does the Government get its money? Especially when they have "promised" to see that there is not one dime in tax increase for people earning under a certain amount. What is a fee on a business other than a tax? When taxes are increased on a business who pays that tax?

[DuncanONeil]

Just a little bit too busy to be as scary as it should be!


This (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) should scare any Americans reading this forum.

[DuncanONeil]

denial!


you linked me to an article that shows bankers failed to comply with the regulation. If the bankers are failing to comply with the regulation they aren't making the ridiculous loans it stipulates. So the crisis isn't being caused by bankers being forced to make loans they don't want to make, due to a regulation they aren't complying with.

If the bankers actually complied with the regulation and made the bad loans that then defaulted then i could agree. But the evidence you've given shows that they didn't. So i don't see how people somehow magically defaulted on these loans that were never made.

[SadisticNature]

I thought it was obvious that Obama either isn't listening to the majority of the American public, or he heard them loud and clear and chooses to push forward with his agenda regardless.

He stated things that are blatantly untrue.


"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."
Um, nope. I definitely wouldn't say that the worst of the storm has PASSED. He has put us even further in debt, spending more than any administration in history. Our unemployment (which he stated would not fall below 8% if we passed the Stimulus bill), is now over 10% and projected to go lower.


"I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages."
Now this one, I liked! This is a good idea.


"Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act."
Trust me, I live in the area. This is something that will rarely get used. Parking is abysmal where they are going to put the railway's station. (Ybor City) There is already an aquarium there, along with the port of Tampa and it's where cruise ships set out. There are several parking garages, but the only way to add parking is for the City to simply kick out some of the businesses and build more garages. This has already been voted against by the citizens here, yet now they're moving forward with it. No one is going to want to fight for parking, pay to park, pay to ride the train...only to shave off 20 minutes to the drive time. (Then they still have to pay to get into Disney, where the other end of the railway will be)


"We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America."
Exports of what? To where? Are we guaranteed that there are buyers for double the exports?


On health care: "Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
That's because the longer it was debated, the more the people realized that what was written into the bill is not altogether a good thing. And more speeches from you explaining the bill even more won't help!


"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal,... "
Nope, this is not in our Constitution, it's in our Bill of Rights - and he knows this, or should, since he studied the Constitution during college.

Since it seems popular to attack all statements without sources these days here is one.

[SadisticNature]

I was going to do a point by point posting a copy of the entire speech, but that effort however thorough is too large to place in any single post.
All of the following quotes are taken from the excerpt of the President’s State of the Union Address provided by The White House, Office of the Press Secretary’s online release.
I am not going to bother going over the “fluff” parts where he makes the standard rally cry or tries to explain away his difficulties by blaming the previous administration or makes empty attempts to appear more like the average citizen instead of the average politician, they do make up the bulk of his speech, but really don’t address anything as to the state of our union except pointing out how much wool we have allowed our politicians to pull over our eyes.

“One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."

But he is going to start off with a lie? The worst has passed? Last time I checked things have gotten worse. Unemployment has risen and the deficit has only increased.

“For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now. “

Seems like? WTF… Try “IS”, “Wall street” is the only one being helped and rewarded and they got us into this mess to begin with! And he is the primary one behind doing the rewarding at that. It took him a year to figure out we are sick of partisanship and poverty? Or is he just sounding like he wants us to cooperate? Remember this is the same man who set up a podium and teleprompters to address a classroom of middle school students.
His solution for fixing the economy is based completely upon the former administrations? I told ya all that he wasn’t going to change anything a long time ago but follow in his predecessors footsteps because he lacked the experience to do anything else.

“Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis”

He purposes charging the Banks a modest fee and extending unemployment. I have nothing against that; I didn’t want the banks or Wall Street to get one red cent to begin with. But I do purpose that his modest fee isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans, in the end he will cave to the bigwigs. He also claims to have cut taxes, yet, I didn’t see any reduction whatsoever in my taxes. I wonder who is getting all these magical tax cuts. So far apparently lies and dam lies make the wheels of his speech go round and round.
Truth be told He didn’t raised income taxes, but, he sure hasn’t done anything to stop the raise in prices on home insurance, property tax mil rates, or the price of gas and power. Every single bill I pay for regular day to day living in those regards has done nothing but went up, in some cases doubled…like groceries.
As for all these magical new jobs I haven’t seen any of them yet.

“The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill.”

Again WTF! Let’s use the same plan that hasn’t been working to fix things? They won’t even hire more “strippers” at the club where I had to go back to dancing at to make ends meet so I could stay in school.

“So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.”

Talk is cheap; I will believe this one when I see it. He should have given all of the stimulus money to the small business to begin with.

”Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. “

I am all for that. Let’s rebuild the entire infrastructure of the country. Now show me where and how you plan to pay for it.
The Tampa High-speed Railroad is his corner stone? Who exactly is paying for that? He already has me dancing naked for drunks to pay for school, I can’t afford to pay for his toy train that no one in Tampa wants. How about you spend that money to rebuild the failing roads instead and make cheaper cars that don’t use fossil fuels. A statewide mass transit system isn’t a feasible solution on the scale it would take in a state like Florida.

“We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America.”

OK here I agree, I am all for converting my home to not have to rely on the power or water companies and keep our business from running off to other countries just so they can increase their own profit margin. To bad that goes directly against the water and power companies wishes not to mention the big foreign investors; gee I wonder how much money he thinks I have to do all this, will I have to go into porn to pay for it.

“Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks.”

Blinks! Punishing the banks?!?, no of course not, we know how much he loves them….because he rewarded them!!!

“It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”

Allmost spit up my coffee......My, oh my how he has changed his tune here, looks like big oil and coal have their fingers deep into his pockets now.

Then after saying what every other president before him since Regan has said about the economy about increasing exports and fostering growth he goes into education.

“To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans.”

So much for what little bit of government money I can get for school, porn is looking better and better.

“ Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants.”

Good luck getting through the four year peerage and liberal indoctrination system our colleges have become.

I must give him credit for saying we need to re-vamp the insurance industry. Fat chance of that actually happening, I bet coal and oil are not the only ones with their fingers up his ass.

“But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know”

Dozens of things have been purposed only to be shot down. How about we leave Iraq and Afghanistan like he promised in the first place we would do, and re-focus our military’s direction on self defense and re-building the infrastructure for a little while. Then use some of that massive excess in the defense budget used on offensive initiatives and strategic deterrence (provided by our taxes) to really stimulate internally organized growth and development. The amount spent on bonuses alone last year would be enough to pay off almost every single mortgage in the USA. Just think how much extra money that would put into the play.
I am in agreement with the “freeze” as well as going through the budget and cutting programs out. But I think that’s not enough, he has entire divisions of government that need to be cut or reorganized.

“Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”

Careful here, he is suggesting that if our elected officials do not agree to do it his way, that he is going to do it anyway somehow. Dangerous ground people and it’s exactly this kind of thing that led the Republic upon which we based our own to end up under the tyranny of an empire.

“Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new.”

Like what? Sidestepping our political systems check and balances through executive orders?

Oh wait I know something that will change things.

Next election we have…if a candidate is listed as a republican or a democrat, we just simply wont vote for them at all and instead throw our support to one of the other people who have been trying to get in who are from a whole different party or are independent with real fresh ideas as opposed to the same ole two party tug of war!

"It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. “

How about this, we don’t allow monetary political contributions at all!

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Wait a second; didn’t he himself get elected this very way? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with the Courts decision. I just wanted to point out the inherent irony this time. Allowing corporations to openly spend as much as they wish just brings what has been going on anyway out into the open. But again I say we shouldn’t allow money into the process at all!

“Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.”

The whole two party only thing wouldn’t be nearly as polarized if the media wasn’t feeding off building tension where it wasn’t and excluding representation of other views; which is something I am sure they will do reverently once they start “spinning” this speech into what they want it to say.

“But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day”.

Including the day he gave this speech.


Then he gets to the War stuff.

“Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons”. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.”

In other words he means that he is perfectly willing to continue following in his predecessor’s footsteps and go even further, especially if he can convince the Russians and Chinese to back our hegemony if we decide to invade either of these two so called forces of “evil”.
Then he goes on to say why he supports American imperialism all the while calling it something else and window dressing it under the veil of democracy. Sounds surprisingly like the speeches given by different Archons when Athenians formed their own empire except our banner is supposed to be civil rights violations.

“Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation. “

My personal response to the television at this point was: “Well then get on with it, just try and not fuck us anymore than you already have!”

Talk is cheap, no more is that proved ironically true and false than with politicians, true because what little that comes out of their mouth is true, false because what does roll out of their mouth is all too often not cheap, at least not for those of us who end up paying for their gibber jabber.

I really want to be wrong, to be mistaken and believe that our “beloved” leader really is magically endowed and that his natural penchance for mendacity as a politician is a misconception on my part.

Though I must say nothing in his speech on the state of our Union has shown me that I should be hopeful in any way what so ever.

A bunch of unsupported facts used to provide credence to an opinion.

[SadisticNature]

0123456789

Here is your post where you did all your responding inside a quote so it can't be quoted. You give a bunch of numbers completely unsourced. So its fairly obvious you are holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to.

[SadisticNature]

I've provided links to the sources:


During the Carter administration, government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/01/us/racial-pattern-is-found-in-boston-mortgages.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, (http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/) empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines (http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf) instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807) could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities? Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=most_emailed_day), Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained (http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=discussion&code=cotn%3AFNM&it=ye&action=detail&id=2395631) that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train.

This is probably the only post in this entire thread that makes a serious attempt to support statements.

[DuncanONeil]

Your knee jerk response was that, of course our oil gets sold overseas. The evil oil company wants to make as much money as possible. By implication that would mean all of it!
Now to try and lay off that because of transportation. Sorry but all they would have to do is to sell the oil FOB origin. Then the transportation does not matter.
Free trade has little to do with but to seriously refute would take more time than this site will allow for a response.


I don't see how exporting 12.5% means that I'm wrong about this. Most of the time the most profitable contract will be in the US because the transport costs are far lower. Also markets fluctuate wildly, so sometimes it will be profitable to sell abroad.

Nothing I said earlier says that the US would sell every drop of oil abroad, just that they are allowed to under free trade agreements, and thus will when they have the economic incentive to do so.



I'm frequently responding to arguments on this board of the form "As a taxpayer I believe X therefore the government should support X." yet when I point out that there are also taxpayers who believe the opposite of X you dismiss it as irrelevant. My argument is not that the government should support X or the opposite, its rather that if you want to argue the government has an obligation to support only services a particular taxpayer is willing to pay for then the government can't provide any services at all because for every service there exists a taxpayer who wouldn't want to pay for it. Some criminals pay taxes (they don't want to go down like Capone did), I'm sure they'd be happy if every level of government spent $0 on police. Similarly for arsonists and fire departments, etc..
What has this got to do with oil??



As for reading of various national documents, people can't even agree on what those are or what mandates they provide.
I thought this was a response to a discussion on oil? What documents are you talking about?



For instance, I don't see how any US document gives the federal government a mandate to occupy a foreign country after already having declared victory in the war for which those troops were present.
Care to be a little more specific? Or is this just intended as filler or just a snide remark?



If an American citizen has an entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does the entitlement to life include medically necessary care? If so, since the government is responsible for providing said right, are they responsible for compensating the health care providers for it?
No one in the US is denied medically necessary care! And those that receive it are not funded by the Government



What does a right of freedom of speech even mean for Americans? You live in a country where the chief justice of the supreme court sent war protesters to jail for protesting a war with the oft quoted line "Freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre." yet freedom of speech supports KKK marches. You live in a country where leftist discussions lead to the McCarthy witch hunts and the shameful trial of Oppenheimer under the Eisenhower administration, yet freedom of speech supports neo-nazi demonstrations. It seems to me your governments and courts have a long history of acting in violation of the rights afforded to you by your fancy paper documents.
Based on this comment you would fit in quite well at the ACLU. First of all the Supreme Court sends no one to jail! And you provide, again, no specifics for analysis. Then there is the propensity to through up past history as if it was headlines in yesterdays daily paper!

[DuncanONeil]

Since it seems popular to attack all statements without sources these days here is one.

????????????????

[DuncanONeil]

A bunch of unsupported facts used to provide credence to an opinion.

Now you are just being more petty!

This was obviously an opinion piece!

[DuncanONeil]

Here is your post where you did all your responding inside a quote so it can't be quoted. You give a bunch of numbers completely unsourced. So its fairly obvious you are holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to.

Waaaahhh!

[SadisticNature]

I believe this is referred to as denial!

There is a phrase about having your cake and eating it to. This is what applies here. The numbers in the article show that black communities are getting far fewer loans than white communities Yet the person is claiming that the cause of the problem is that the black community is getting more high risk loans which the bankers know are sure to default. You are hence claiming they are both getting less loans and more loans. This is obviously absurd. Your 1 word statement of "denial" does nothing to answer this criticism.

Do not know what your source is but it sounds a lot like wishful thinking to protect the real perp.


Simple statements with no support. A logical look at this should suffice. If people have more of the money they worked for then they can choose what to do with that money; save it, spend it, invest it. In each case this money creates work for someone, that work generates income that income is taxed. since there is an increase in income then the revenues to the Government increase.
The greatest cause for Government income problems is the fact that there is no restraint on the Government checkbook. Would you not love the ability to increase you credit line if you were getting close to that limit? Even under the current conditions, when any sane person would realize that income is down and the need to cut spending the Government is doing just the opposite! Where does the Government get its money? Especially when they have "promised" to see that there is not one dime in tax increase for people earning under a certain amount. What is a fee on a business other than a tax? When taxes are increased on a business who pays that tax?

So basically according to you when business spends money it creates work for people and when government spends money it doesn't. You have presented no evidence at all for this false dichotomy. You seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments. Interesting. Seeing as you don't advocate deficit spending in a recession I'll just be happy you don't have a career in politics. ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.

[SadisticNature]

Your knee jerk response was that, of course our oil gets sold overseas. The evil oil company wants to make as much money as possible. By implication that would mean all of it!
Now to try and lay off that because of transportation. Sorry but all they would have to do is to sell the oil FOB origin. Then the transportation does not matter.
Free trade has little to do with but to seriously refute would take more time than this site will allow for a response.





What has this got to do with oil??



I thought this was a response to a discussion on oil? What documents are you talking about?



Care to be a little more specific? Or is this just intended as filler or just a snide remark?



No one in the US is denied medically necessary care! And those that receive it are not funded by the Government



Based on this comment you would fit in quite well at the ACLU. First of all the Supreme Court sends no one to jail! And you provide, again, no specifics for analysis. Then there is the propensity to through up past history as if it was headlines in yesterdays daily paper!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The supreme court rules on the constitutionality of a criminal conviction. By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong. History informs the future. Your fundamental argument in this thread is that historic documents should be used with historic interpretations to limit the mandate of government, yet when someone presents history you don't like you attempt to shut it down by being irrelevant due to being not current. It would be equally ridiculous for me to tell you to stop quoting some document from the 18th century in a thread about the 21st.

[denuseri]

Hey I never claimed that my personal opinions were gospel Sadistic. I was just saying what was going through my head as I watched and then later read the speach. I wasn't writting a peer reviewed doctoral thesis for your approval.

Personally I am all for heath care reform. (see my posts on it in universal health care thread) http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18852

I just havent seen any yet, nor has what I have seen being purposed by the current administration even close to what I want to be done.

I fully support gay marrige (see that thread at your lieasure as well along with the sexual orientation in the military one)

I am also against torture and having our troops running hillie nille all over the globe pushing our ways on everyone else with the point of a gun (imperialism by any other name in my book). As you can also see from my numerous posts in those related threads.

Though if we do have to fight somewhere, imho we should get in, do it, and get out. Not hang around and turn it into a long term occupation.

I even supported Obama's campaign in its early stages until I had studdied his credentials (which were no better than Palins) and decided to support McCain instead (also a bad choice I know cuase he has turned out to be yet another lieing a hole willing to sacrifice his principles) but at the time he still seemed more cualified than Clinton(lesser of two evils imho).

In fact at this point, I am thinking the best thing we as americans can do is voting out all incumbants every time and replaceing them only with canadaites that don't have democrat or republican next to their name on the ballot.

[steelish]

I thought it was obvious that Obama either isn't listening to the majority of the American public, or he heard them loud and clear and chooses to push forward with his agenda regardless.

He stated things that are blatantly untrue.


"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."

Um, nope. I definitely wouldn't say that the worst of the storm has PASSED. He has put us even further in debt, spending more than any administration in history. Our unemployment (which he stated would not fall below 8% if we passed the Stimulus bill), is now over 10% and projected to go lower.

Here are my sources...Obama unveils stimulus package (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5303652.ece) and the deficit is worse now than it was EVER BEFORE AND PROJECTED TO GO HIGHER (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html)


"I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages."

Now this one, I liked! This is a good idea.

No need to provide a source on this. I liked this idea.


"Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act."

Trust me, I live in the area. This is something that will rarely get used. Parking is abysmal where they are going to put the railway's station. (Ybor City) There is already an aquarium there, along with the port of Tampa and it's where cruise ships set out. There are several parking garages, but the only way to add parking is for the City to simply kick out some of the businesses and build more garages. This has already been voted against by the citizens here, yet now they're moving forward with it. No one is going to want to fight for parking, pay to park, pay to ride the train...only to shave off 20 minutes to the drive time. (Then they still have to pay to get into Disney, where the other end of the railway will be)

Again, no need to cite sources as to the vote. I live here. We voted. No go. Here is a source as to the money we are "promised" and when ground will actually break (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/27/cnn-fact-check-florida-high-speed-rail-line/?fbid=IF9ZhVBEe81). I wish I could find all the blogs that popped up immediately after the speech, because the internet was full of them. Floridians are PISSED OFF.


"We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America."

Exports of what? To where? Are we guaranteed that there are buyers for double the exports?

No need to cite sources. I was asking a question. Can someone help? Does anyone know what export Obama is planning to double and to whom?


On health care: "Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."

That's because the longer it was debated, the more the people realized that what was written into the bill is not altogether a good thing. And more speeches from you explaining the bill even more won't help!

Yes, my opinion (and the opinion of many I talk to). I certainly don't mind stating my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, don't read it or rebut it.


"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal,... "

Nope, this is not in our Constitution, it's in our Bill of Rights - and he knows this, or should, since he studied the Constitution during college.

My bad. I was typing in such a hurry I put in the wrong document name. It is the Declaration of Independence NOT the Bill of Rights! (duh)

Constitution (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution)....Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/)


Since it seems popular to attack all statements without sources these days here is one.

Here is one what? Attack? No, I don't view this as an attack but I am sorry if you view requests for sources as a personal attack. I have my principles and values/beliefs...you have yours. I read your posts and rebut or disagree with them as is my right. You do the same to mine. We can agree to disagree.

[SadisticNature]

When I post an argument or disagreement there are those on this forum who instead of responding with something along the lines of:

I disagree, I see it like this (opinion). Would you like to provide some reference material for the original argument?



Then when you provide sources, they didn't mean they wanted sources (which according to dictionary.com is a list of materials) but rather they wanted you to source your statements (which differs in that it means providing exact locations in your source materials that support each statement in your post).

Then they turn the entire discussion into a discussion about "your evasion on sources" instead of the material they were uncomfortable with before.

[DuncanONeil]

Maybe not politics, but Government.
The basic point is the Government does not produce anything, although it does consume. On the basis of that it spends and others make money from their neighbors.
The attempts of this Government to "boost" the economy can be considered smoke and mirrors. Virtually all that has gone out has gone to social service groups or local governments, as a one time income. Even if they used this money for new hires, government jobs, who pays for it next year? The locals from an increase in taxes. Or the feds have to increase taxes, or the deficit, to fund it again.
The issue revolves around the fact that a business produces a product that creates income, a Government does not, hence any of its spending does not create income.
Now here comes the challenge, you claim this is a dichotomy and yet expect me to provide evidence that it is true. You have made a claim without any refutation. Therefore the original statements still stand.
You posit that I; "seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments". It should be clear that both of these can not be true. When business has excess revenue it can do all of the things I mention previously. When the Government takes that money business can do none of those things. Therefore only one instance can create an increase in revenue to the Government. Past practice has shown that Government can not control, what can be called nothing else, its greed for money. The worst example was when Congress began to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Which I believe is going red this year!
Deficit spending is what they tried in the 30s! Took 30 years and a World War to fix that solution. My parents lived through that I do not desire to emulate them!

"ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT"
Which argument? And what facts are you challenging?


So basically according to you when business spends money it creates work for people and when government spends money it doesn't. You have presented no evidence at all for this false dichotomy. You seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments. Interesting. Seeing as you don't advocate deficit spending in a recession I'll just be happy you don't have a career in politics. ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.

[DuncanONeil]

"By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong."
I am wrong!?!? By the time a case get to the Supreme's the person has already been convicted and sentenced. The subject to said case is not even permitted into the Supreme's presence. Their ruling does not put a person in jail, they can only make it possible for them to be removed from jail, or prison as the case may be.

"History informs the future." Good line! I like that! But that is not what you are doing with your historical references. You are presenting them as fait accompli to the way the nation is now. That is not "informing the future", That is more like the past is the future. That no matter what is learned or how things change what ever happened in the past can never change. Kind of like Your great grand uncle Jake was a cattle rustler so you must have stolen my cows.
What history that you have presented did I not like and how is it possible for me to "shut history down"? I would need access to a black hole to do that!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The supreme court rules on the constitutionality of a criminal conviction. By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong. History informs the future. Your fundamental argument in this thread is that historic documents should be used with historic interpretations to limit the mandate of government, yet when someone presents history you don't like you attempt to shut it down by being irrelevant due to being not current. It would be equally ridiculous for me to tell you to stop quoting some document from the 18th century in a thread about the 21st.

[SadisticNature]

"By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong."
I am wrong!?!? By the time a case get to the Supreme's the person has already been convicted and sentenced. The subject to said case is not even permitted into the Supreme's presence. Their ruling does not put a person in jail, they can only make it possible for them to be removed from jail, or prison as the case may be.

"History informs the future." Good line! I like that! But that is not what you are doing with your historical references. You are presenting them as fait accompli to the way the nation is now. That is not "informing the future", That is more like the past is the future. That no matter what is learned or how things change what ever happened in the past can never change. Kind of like Your great grand uncle Jake was a cattle rustler so you must have stolen my cows.
What history that you have presented did I not like and how is it possible for me to "shut history down"? I would need access to a black hole to do that!

You claim to support the following:

(I) You are entitled to free speech because of the constitution.
(II) The constitution is not a document subject to modern interpretations.

So I've pointed out the most famous ruling where the government stripped a supposive constitutional right to free speech. Do you believe the ruling was outright wrong?

It seems to me you can't argue that the constitution should be interpreted as it was written then argue historical constitutional cases are irrelevant and don't reflect the country now, unless you are claiming the ruling was incorrect in those cases.

[SadisticNature]

Not only do you continue to argue your point without a single source, but you now expect me to source my challenge to your argument when you won't source either your arguments or your challenges to my arguments in this or other threads. This is a ridiculous double standard.

Furthermore you hold: The original statement stands. The original statement fails to stand because it contains a bunch of unsourced, unproven claims.

As for economic growth:

Even one time income for social service groups does create income for other businesses. Grocery stores make money because welfare recipients spend money there. Government workers spend their money on various goods in their communities, etc. In fact, in many cases the government can create faster cycling of money because it can distribute wealth into ways that encourage spending rather than saving, and spending drives economic growth at a faster rate than investment or savings do. The rate of money changing hands is a primary economic driver.

Taxes->Government->Social Security Recipients->Businesses providing essentials
is a rather quick turnover that drives a lot of economic spending.

Maybe not politics, but Government.
The basic point is the Government does not produce anything, although it does consume. On the basis of that it spends and others make money from their neighbors.
The attempts of this Government to "boost" the economy can be considered smoke and mirrors. Virtually all that has gone out has gone to social service groups or local governments, as a one time income. Even if they used this money for new hires, government jobs, who pays for it next year? The locals from an increase in taxes. Or the feds have to increase taxes, or the deficit, to fund it again.
The issue revolves around the fact that a business produces a product that creates income, a Government does not, hence any of its spending does not create income.
Now here comes the challenge, you claim this is a dichotomy and yet expect me to provide evidence that it is true. You have made a claim without any refutation. Therefore the original statements still stand.
You posit that I; "seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments". It should be clear that both of these can not be true. When business has excess revenue it can do all of the things I mention previously. When the Government takes that money business can do none of those things. Therefore only one instance can create an increase in revenue to the Government. Past practice has shown that Government can not control, what can be called nothing else, its greed for money. The worst example was when Congress began to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Which I believe is going red this year!
Deficit spending is what they tried in the 30s! Took 30 years and a World War to fix that solution. My parents lived through that I do not desire to emulate them!

"ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT"
Which argument? And what facts are you challenging?

[SadisticNature]

It in no way shape or form shows that bankers failed to comply with the regulation. What it shows is that the government's misguided attempts to "equal the playing field" amongst ethnicities didn't work. The banks did comply. They gave loans to people who could not afford the loans, the banks didn't discriminate while doing so. The government's attempts to "spread the wealth" of homeownership backfired, as does much of what they attempt to do "for" the citizens of the U.S.

They need to quit trying to "take care of us" and simply be the government that the founding fathers designed.

The article actually was arguing bankers were not providing adequate loans to the black community and gave numbers showing how those neighborhoods were getting much fewer loans.

My question still stands: How is it that they aren't providing loans to the black community? Yet in providing these loans they caused the housing meltdown?

[TwistedTails]

Originally Posted by twistedtails
i think he took too long and spent far too much money to say ..
It's really bad, we're fucked; so lets make it worse!.


0123456789

Normally, I would complain about someone altering my comments, but since you made it more in line with what I was actually feeling.
A "tip of the hat to ya"

0123456789 ? I take it the ten character minimum rule is still in effect? ;)

[TwistedTails]

In fact at this point, I am thinking the best thing we as americans can do is voting out all incumbants every time and replaceing them only with canadaites that don't have democrat or republican next to their name on the ballot.

Definatly agree with this, and it seems there is a long history of this belief.

"Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason."
— Mark Twain

[TwistedTails]

Here is your post where you did all your responding inside a quote so it can't be quoted. You give a bunch of numbers completely unsourced. So its fairly obvious you are holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to.

Tech Tip: When the reply is placed inside the quote box, I find that using the cut and past function built into your operating system to move the reply into a new quote box is quite effective.

[TwistedTails]

When I post an argument or disagreement there are those on this forum who instead of responding with something along the lines of:

I disagree, I see it like this (opinion). Would you like to provide some reference material for the original argument?



Then when you provide sources, they didn't mean they wanted sources (which according to dictionary.com is a list of materials) but rather they wanted you to source your statements (which differs in that it means providing exact locations in your source materials that support each statement in your post).

Then they turn the entire discussion into a discussion about "your evasion on sources" instead of the material they were uncomfortable with before.

Hmm, There's an invitation to join this thread if I ever saw one.

But hey, Just because your poorly conceived, ineptly presented, completely unsupported argument that you didn't even research, got shredded in another thread is no reason to drag the argument into this one. If you have a problem with my "debate style" Feel free to address me, or take it up with a moderator.

Respectfully,
"They"

** The poster of this message disavows any knowledge of the identities or whereabouts of Any alleged members of the "They" faction.

:4:

[steelish]

You seem to support the idea that tax cuts generate wealth for governments yet you can't support the idea that governments spending money to drive the economy generate wealth for governments. Interesting. Seeing as you don't advocate deficit spending in a recession I'll just be happy you don't have a career in politics. ALSO PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.

Andrew Mellon — he was the Timothy Geithner without the TurboTax scandal — did a study in 1921 on why the wealthier classes had paid less and less in taxes as the government raised the rates on them over and over again. Mellon found that higher taxes actually drove the money underground.

Let's put it in today's context. Oprah Winfrey has a mansion in Montecito, California but because California has one of the highest progressive tax rates on people making over $1 million a year, she actually monitors the number of days she stays there, in order to avoid being considered a "full-time resident" and thus avoid paying the full punishment in taxes.

Here's another example: In 1969, Ireland introduced a tax-exempt status for artists. When they decided, in 2006, to put a cap on that tax break — 250,000 euros — Bono, another one of these celebrities who champion progressive politicians, promptly moved U2's business operations to the Netherlands.

That's how the money goes "underground," just like Mellon found in the 1920s; the uber-rich look to save money any way they can. And as long as it's legal, I don't blame them. But it drives me nuts when I see people like Oprah campaigning for the guy who wants more taxes and then she doesn't want to pay the taxes.

In the 1920s, Mellon found that "the rich" tended to invest abroad rather than build new factories and mills in the United States and pay the 73 percent tax on the income from those investments. That's right, 73 percent.

It didn't start that way, though. When progressive Woodrow Wilson introduced the "progressive income tax" in 1913, the 16th Amendment had to be passed because income taxes were unconstitutional. How did these reformers manage to get it passed? They said taxes would be extremely low. Many would pay no taxes at all.

The richest of the rich only paid seven percent, while the average American paid one percent. Of course, it didn't last. By the end of Wilson's term the lowest bracket bumped up to four percent and the highest at 73 percent.

President Harding decided to listen to Mellon. And from 1921 to 1926, Congress worked to reduce the top tax rates. Eventually they got to top rates down to 25 percent. The result: Tax revenues from the wealthiest taxpayers tripled. The national debt dropped from $24 billion to $18 billion.

President Calvin Coolidge assumed the presidency in 1923 after Harding suddenly died and continued with the smaller government, lower tax strategy. He talked about not building up the weak by pulling down the strong; not being in a hurry to legislate and cutting the size of government. Coolidge and Harding decreased the real per capita federal expenditures from $170 per year in 1920 to $70 in 1924.

These policies, along with fostering the mentality of self-reliance (the opposite of what progressives had been preaching the previous 20 years and the opposite of what they preach now, by saying "too big to fail" or you can't make it without government safety nets) was followed by what was arguably one of the most prosperous eight years this country has ever seen. You've probably heard of a little term called "The Roaring Twenties," right? The progressive history books have done their best to hide the fact that a lot of it had to do with Mellon's tax policies, including the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Progressives don't want you to know this. They'll say the tax cuts and small government caused the Great Depression. No, I'm going to go out on a limb here and use common sense: The same things that caused the problems of today were the root of the problem in 1929: greed; the Federal Reserve; government making every single mistake. The president before the crash was a Republican, but a progressive Republican. But, that's for another show.

Let me get back to what happened when they cut taxes in 1921:

Automobile production was up 191 percent for the decade and while the elites bemoaned those wealthy fat cats and their automobiles, their appetite for driving created jobs. The demand for auto-related products skyrocketed: metal; lumber; steel; cotton; leather; paint; rubber; glass and of course, gasoline. Companies had to be created to meet the demand. This is real job creation. People had to be hired. Roads were being built. State highway construction spending increased tenfold between 1918 and 1930; did they fire all the cops and teachers?

In 1920 there were only 5,800 passengers who had flown on a plane. By 1930 it was 70 times that amount.

RCA brought us the radio and along with it, advertising. Now you could hear Babe Ruth hitting home runs all anywhere in the country.

Thomas Edison brought us movies in the 1880s, but in the 1920s the true modern-era motion picture arrived with Cecil B. Demille and "The Ten Commandments."

A whistling Mickey Mouse was introduced to America by Walt Disney in 1928; the first cartoon with synchronized sound.

Conveniences like telephones became less exclusive and more commonplace in the '20s. More Americans had irons, vacuums, washing machines and refrigerators. And all of these new products meant there was a demand for something else: energy. America needed huge power plants.

Does all of this innovation and growth seem to anyone else, like lasting job creation? Assuming the Fed and the government don't come in and screw everything up. And unlike the temporary jobs or the low-paying census jobs our government creates, per capita income had increased 37 percent from 1921 and 1929. People saved and invested like never before, gaining access to things for the first time such as life insurance.

It was America's coming-out party. And all of this success, all of the innovation, all of the prosperity without punishing the rich, without big government, absolutely baffled progressives. Especially the fact that everyone benefited; from the bottom up.

Evidence? Leon Trotsky, a Marxist revolutionary in the Soviet Union with Lenin, later lived in New York City in 1917. He fought all his life for Marxism to help the working class. Here's what he said about New York: "We rented an apartment in a workers district... and that apartment, at $18 a month, was equipped with all sorts of conveniences that we Europeans were quite unused to: Electric lights, gas cooking range, bath, telephone, automatic service elevator, and even a chute for the garbage."

The source? A Patriot's History of the United States by Michael Allen and Larry Schweikhart

[SadisticNature]

Andrew Mellon — he was the Timothy Geithner without the TurboTax scandal — did a study in 1921 on why the wealthier classes had paid less and less in taxes as the government raised the rates on them over and over again. Mellon found that higher taxes actually drove the money underground.

Let's put it in today's context. Oprah Winfrey has a mansion in Montecito, California but because California has one of the highest progressive tax rates on people making over $1 million a year, she actually monitors the number of days she stays there, in order to avoid being considered a "full-time resident" and thus avoid paying the full punishment in taxes.

Here's another example: In 1969, Ireland introduced a tax-exempt status for artists. When they decided, in 2006, to put a cap on that tax break — 250,000 euros — Bono, another one of these celebrities who champion progressive politicians, promptly moved U2's business operations to the Netherlands.

That's how the money goes "underground," just like Mellon found in the 1920s; the uber-rich look to save money any way they can. And as long as it's legal, I don't blame them. But it drives me nuts when I see people like Oprah campaigning for the guy who wants more taxes and then she doesn't want to pay the taxes.

In the 1920s, Mellon found that "the rich" tended to invest abroad rather than build new factories and mills in the United States and pay the 73 percent tax on the income from those investments. That's right, 73 percent.

It didn't start that way, though. When progressive Woodrow Wilson introduced the "progressive income tax" in 1913, the 16th Amendment had to be passed because income taxes were unconstitutional. How did these reformers manage to get it passed? They said taxes would be extremely low. Many would pay no taxes at all.

The richest of the rich only paid seven percent, while the average American paid one percent. Of course, it didn't last. By the end of Wilson's term the lowest bracket bumped up to four percent and the highest at 73 percent.

President Harding decided to listen to Mellon. And from 1921 to 1926, Congress worked to reduce the top tax rates. Eventually they got to top rates down to 25 percent. The result: Tax revenues from the wealthiest taxpayers tripled. The national debt dropped from $24 billion to $18 billion.

President Calvin Coolidge assumed the presidency in 1923 after Harding suddenly died and continued with the smaller government, lower tax strategy. He talked about not building up the weak by pulling down the strong; not being in a hurry to legislate and cutting the size of government. Coolidge and Harding decreased the real per capita federal expenditures from $170 per year in 1920 to $70 in 1924.

These policies, along with fostering the mentality of self-reliance (the opposite of what progressives had been preaching the previous 20 years and the opposite of what they preach now, by saying "too big to fail" or you can't make it without government safety nets) was followed by what was arguably one of the most prosperous eight years this country has ever seen. You've probably heard of a little term called "The Roaring Twenties," right? The progressive history books have done their best to hide the fact that a lot of it had to do with Mellon's tax policies, including the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Progressives don't want you to know this. They'll say the tax cuts and small government caused the Great Depression. No, I'm going to go out on a limb here and use common sense: The same things that caused the problems of today were the root of the problem in 1929: greed; the Federal Reserve; government making every single mistake. The president before the crash was a Republican, but a progressive Republican. But, that's for another show.

Let me get back to what happened when they cut taxes in 1921:

Automobile production was up 191 percent for the decade and while the elites bemoaned those wealthy fat cats and their automobiles, their appetite for driving created jobs. The demand for auto-related products skyrocketed: metal; lumber; steel; cotton; leather; paint; rubber; glass and of course, gasoline. Companies had to be created to meet the demand. This is real job creation. People had to be hired. Roads were being built. State highway construction spending increased tenfold between 1918 and 1930; did they fire all the cops and teachers?

In 1920 there were only 5,800 passengers who had flown on a plane. By 1930 it was 70 times that amount.

RCA brought us the radio and along with it, advertising. Now you could hear Babe Ruth hitting home runs all anywhere in the country.

Thomas Edison brought us movies in the 1880s, but in the 1920s the true modern-era motion picture arrived with Cecil B. Demille and "The Ten Commandments."

A whistling Mickey Mouse was introduced to America by Walt Disney in 1928; the first cartoon with synchronized sound.

Conveniences like telephones became less exclusive and more commonplace in the '20s. More Americans had irons, vacuums, washing machines and refrigerators. And all of these new products meant there was a demand for something else: energy. America needed huge power plants.

Does all of this innovation and growth seem to anyone else, like lasting job creation? Assuming the Fed and the government don't come in and screw everything up. And unlike the temporary jobs or the low-paying census jobs our government creates, per capita income had increased 37 percent from 1921 and 1929. People saved and invested like never before, gaining access to things for the first time such as life insurance.

It was America's coming-out party. And all of this success, all of the innovation, all of the prosperity without punishing the rich, without big government, absolutely baffled progressives. Especially the fact that everyone benefited; from the bottom up.

Evidence? Leon Trotsky, a Marxist revolutionary in the Soviet Union with Lenin, later lived in New York City in 1917. He fought all his life for Marxism to help the working class. Here's what he said about New York: "We rented an apartment in a workers district... and that apartment, at $18 a month, was equipped with all sorts of conveniences that we Europeans were quite unused to: Electric lights, gas cooking range, bath, telephone, automatic service elevator, and even a chute for the garbage."

The source? A Patriot's History of the United States by Michael Allen and Larry Schweikhart

This argument is an interesting take, however it isn't really supported by the data. The roaring 20's had the following tax rates on the top brackets:

1920: 73%
1921: 73%
1922: 56%
1923: 56%
1924: 46%
1925-1928:26%
1929: 24%
1930-31: 25%

So the tax rates were lowest during the crash of 1929 and the first part of the recession, while prosperity ensued in the early 1920's despite a 73% and a 56% tax rate.

As for the comment "all of the prosperity without big government, without punishing the rich baffling progressives", this reads like a party line. Progressives don't set out to punish the rich, they see government as a provider of services, and set out to adequately provide and pay for those services. This requires the raising of revenues (through various forms of taxation).

Furthermore, the entire postwar prosperity period 1946-1973 was defined by some of the highest income taxes in US history. If those tax levels were actually causing people to avoid investing the GDP growth seen over this period would not be occurring.

While various economic indicators show the Reagan administration did well in the short term, this was at the cost of a dramatic debt increase. US Debt as a percentage of GDP declined under all presidents after 1950 before Reagan. Under Reagan (and all presidents since) it has increased as a percentage of GDP. To put this in perspective, when Reagan came into power the US national debt was $930 Billion and was $2.6 trillion at the end of 1988. In addition, the national deficit was staggering.

You seem to be phrasing the debate as an argument between communism and capitalism, when in fact it is an argument between different types of capitalism. I argue for a capitalist system that more closely resembles the post-war boom policies of the government, while you argue for a capitalist system like that of the Reagan and post-Reagan period.

The system I've argued for worked for a significant period in the past century. It saw the growing of the economy and a shrinking of the national debt relative to GDP. This means that each president was leaving his successor a more prosperous America that placed less of a burden on future generations.

Your system is individually rewarding, but as the past 30 years has shown its a disaster for the country. The economy has grown slower than the national debt and each president since (Republican or Democrat) left his successor with a greater burden for future generations. The tax rates were so low in fact that they got raised during a Republican presidency (Bush I) in order to pay for proposed programs.

I think communism is a terrible system that is incredibly oppressive and doesn't work. The extreme political left is a disaster. Similarly various nationalist systems showed that the extreme political right is a disaster.

The question is not which tax rate on the top bracket is best: 0% or 100%.

But rather, what selection of services and taxes provides the best economic and social outcomes for the country.

The Mellon study sounds interesting do you have a link to it?

While there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence for money going underground due to high taxes. The fact is much of it does not. For every U2 or Oprah there are tons of people like Bill Gates that actually pay their taxes, and place much of their investments in the country. Furthermore, there is a lot of business in the country that is fixed. It is difficult to provide a local service in the US from a business operated and taxed in the Netherlands for instance. What would be nice is if instead of providing anecdotes for your claim you could provide figures from studies showing:

(i) total investment by Americans in the US economy.
(ii) total investment by Americans in other economies.

and possibly also
(iii) total worldwide investment.
(iv) total investment in the American economy.

Without these figures we end up in a situation where one side points to one anecdote (the people getting fed up and leaving or working around the system), while the other side claims that those people are few and far between, and in many cases the effects on investment are negligible.

[Torq]

OK, It's that time Again,

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!

As ALL posters in this area know or BETTER know read this post!

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14615

Opinions MUST BE ON THE TOPIC!!!

The next "Personal" attack WILL result in the poster being BANNED from the site!

NO EXCEPTIONS,,NO EXCUSES

ENOUGH

T

[DuncanONeil]

You claim to support the following:

(I) You are entitled to free speech because of the constitution.
The statement is true, but you are thereby postulating and absolute right. That aside you citation is moot.

(II) The constitution is not a document subject to modern interpretations.
Where have I said that? The Constitution requires strict interpretation.

So I've pointed out the most famous ruling where the government stripped a supposive constitutional right to free speech. Do you believe the ruling was outright wrong?

It seems to me you can't argue that the constitution should be interpreted as it was written then argue historical constitutional cases are irrelevant and don't reflect the country now, unless you are claiming the ruling was incorrect in those cases.[/QUOTE]
As stated above the ruling is moot!

[DuncanONeil]

I made a specific request that was ignored. Something I also consider a deflection technique of the left. Used until the original argument is lost and it becomes about the argument rather than the point.
What in heavens name are you talking about?

Government largesse will not, repeat not result in economic growth. The grants for welfare are the modern equivalent of; "give a man a fish". You feed him until the "fish: is gone than he returns for more of your "fish". Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Further, as your diagram shows, your economic model begins with taxes going to the Government. This money is money that is not available to GROW the economy. It provides for stagnation at best. And tends to lead to a situation where the Taxes begin to decrease. Such a decrease leaves the Government with two choices; increase taxes, (which increase the downward trend) or cut benefits (which does nothing for the economy at all.
As far as encouraging spending. Examine the "stimulus" money, most of which has yet to reach outside Washington, and you will see it did two things. Buy a single project or provide for a continuing project where future spending must come from the states. And all of the jobs are in the government ranks. The "stimulus: is only stimulating government!
True the economy seems to be based on spending but investment and saving are more durable than spending as the increase more than spending. To increase the economy by spending requires a steady increase in spending, that requires a steady increase in funding. Where is that funding to come from? Investment creates future funds!


Not only do you continue to argue your point without a single source, but you now expect me to source my challenge to your argument when you won't source either your arguments or your challenges to my arguments in this or other threads. This is a ridiculous double standard.

Furthermore you hold: The original statement stands. The original statement fails to stand because it contains a bunch of unsourced, unproven claims.

As for economic growth:

Even one time income for social service groups does create income for other businesses. Grocery stores make money because welfare recipients spend money there. Government workers spend their money on various goods in their communities, etc. In fact, in many cases the government can create faster cycling of money because it can distribute wealth into ways that encourage spending rather than saving, and spending drives economic growth at a faster rate than investment or savings do. The rate of money changing hands is a primary economic driver.

Taxes->Government->Social Security Recipients->Businesses providing essentials
is a rather quick turnover that drives a lot of economic spending.

[DuncanONeil]

The article actually was arguing bankers were not providing adequate loans to the black community and gave numbers showing how those neighborhoods were getting much fewer loans.

My question still stands: How is it that they aren't providing loans to the black community? Yet in providing these loans they caused the housing meltdown?

I missed something! What is the date of the article being referenced here.

The comment above is the whole point of the Government driven requirement. Get loans to people whose resources are not capable of sustaining the loan. This is where the increase in minority neighborhoods were led to the "American Dream" and sold out at the same time. Sold out by the lies about Freddie and Fannie.
Again the meltdown was caused by Washington interference in the day to day banking business.

[DuncanONeil]

Normally, I would complain about someone altering my comments, but since you made it more in line with what I was actually feeling.
A "tip of the hat to ya"

0123456789 ? I take it the ten character minimum rule is still in effect? ;)
Yeah! But only if you do as I did and write inside the other's quote.

Also that is why I made it as obvious as possible that I was speaking myself rather than pretending to be you!

[DuncanONeil]

This argument is an interesting take, however it isn't really supported by the data. The roaring 20's had the following tax rates on the top brackets:

1920: 73%
1921: 73%
1922: 56%
1923: 56%
1924: 46%
1925-1928:26%
1929: 24%
1930-31: 25%

I believe that is exactly what the young lady said!!
"And from 1921 to 1926, Congress worked to reduce the top tax rates. Eventually they got to top rates down to 25 percent."

[DuncanONeil]

As for the comment "all of the prosperity without big government, without punishing the rich baffling progressives", this reads like a party line. Progressives don't set out to punish the rich, they see government as a provider of services, and set out to adequately provide and pay for those services. This requires the raising of revenues (through various forms of taxation).
Must disagree! The whole point of a "progressive" tax is to punish the "rich". Progressives do not see Government as a "provider of services". They see Government as a provider. The entire intent of the "Progressive" movement is shown by;
"1. To change other people by having them adopt the Progressive vision of middle class
behavior and thought...this particularly applied to issues of recreation and leisure, the
status of the family, sexual orientation and behavior. Progressives sought to revive a
sense of Victorian family and social values early in the twentieth-century

2. To end class conflict between the "have's"(the privileged class) and "the have less," (or
have not)

3. To effect a measure of control over big business

4. To segregate society into groups, based on occupation (labor, management,etc) race,
sex (laws protecting women insured secondary status in employment), and immigration
status. Segregation of the races was seen by Progressives as a method of stabilizing
race relations.
Four Main Goals of the Progressive Movement are-
1.Protecting Social Welfare.
2.Fostering Efficiencey.
3.Moral Improvement.
4.Economic Reform.
(Answers.com)
Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy. Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction--the vision--needed for true progressive government. "All that progressives ask or desire," wrote Woodrow Wilson, "is permission--in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word--to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine." The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, (shows that Progressivism (seeks to) transform American politics. What was that transformation? It was a total rejection in theory, and a partial rejection in practice, of the principles and policies on which America had been founded and on the basis of which the Civil War had been fought and won only a few years earlier. When I speak of Progressivism, I mean the movement that rose to prominence between about 1880 and 1920.
(The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics by Thomas G. West and William A. Schambra)"

Furthermore, the entire postwar prosperity period 1946-1973 was defined by some of the highest income taxes in US history. If those tax levels were actually causing people to avoid investing the GDP growth seen over this period would not be occurring.


While various economic indicators show the Reagan administration did well in the short term, this was at the cost of a dramatic debt increase. US Debt as a percentage of GDP declined under all presidents after 1950 before Reagan. Under Reagan (and all presidents since) it has increased as a percentage of GDP. To put this in perspective, when Reagan came into power the US national debt was $930 Billion and was $2.6 trillion at the end of 1988. In addition, the national deficit was staggering.
Its not staggering now? With projections to continue to grow! The numbers you cite are largely correct. Yet the deficit in 1989, though a large number was somewhat of an insignificant increase. The 1980 deficit was 2.65% of GDP and 1989 was 2.78%. The GDP grew from some five trillion to just over seven trillion


You seem to be phrasing the debate as an argument between communism and capitalism, when in fact it is an argument between different types of capitalism. I argue for a capitalist system that more closely resembles the post-war boom policies of the government, while you argue for a capitalist system like that of the Reagan and post-Reagan period.
Your argument seems to more closely approximate the "Progressive" system of Wilson. This would not be good for the country as indicated above.


The system I've argued for worked for a significant period in the past century. It saw the growing of the economy and a shrinking of the national debt relative to GDP. This means that each president was leaving his successor a more prosperous America that placed less of a burden on future generations.
You are going to have to define "significant period". In looking at the debt data for the last century the national debt grew in 46 of the years. And the longest run of the debt reducing has never exceeded four years


Your system is individually rewarding, but as the past 30 years has shown its a disaster for the country. The economy has grown slower than the national debt and each president since (Republican or Democrat) left his successor with a greater burden for future generations. The tax rates were so low in fact that they got raised during a Republican presidency (Bush I) in order to pay for proposed programs.
Yet in that same period of time the number of people in the "middle class" and the group above that has increased, as well as the level of income! Covering exactly 30 years from today is difficult but 30 years from 2008 is 1978. Per capita income was $6,455 (1978 $), or $19,556 (2008) $). Per capita in 2008 $26,964. Using IRS data the people in the top 10% of earners increased by five million from 1986 to 2006. Those in the top 25% group minus the top 10% grew by three million. Miniumum income for the 10% started at $48,656 and grew to $108,904. The top 25% (minus the top 10%) minimum income rose from $32,242 to $64,702. So not only did the income rise but the number of people in each group also rose, significantly!


I think communism is a terrible system that is incredibly oppressive and doesn't work. The extreme political left is a disaster. Similarly various nationalist systems showed that the extreme political right is a disaster.

The question is not which tax rate on the top bracket is best: 0% or 100%.


But rather, what selection of services and taxes provides the best economic and social outcomes for the country.
That is a direct plank from the "Progressive" agenda. Only Government can make the social "boo-boos" better.
I believe it was the message that generated your response about hidden monies. There exist a tax strategy that has been shown capable of returning all of that "hidden" money to the banks inside the country. As well as bringing back the companies that are now offshore as well. Not only that but will influence foreign companies to locate their operations here. It also will increase the tax base, by favoring no one!

The Mellon study sounds interesting do you have a link to it?


While there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence for money going underground due to high taxes. The fact is much of it does not. For every U2 or Oprah there are tons of people like Bill Gates that actually pay their taxes, and place much of their investments in the country. Furthermore, there is a lot of business in the country that is fixed. It is difficult to provide a local service in the US from a business operated and taxed in the Netherlands for instance. What would be nice is if instead of providing anecdotes for your claim you could provide figures from studies showing:

(i) total investment by Americans in the US economy.
(ii) total investment by Americans in other economies.

and possibly also
(iii) total worldwide investment.
(iv) total investment in the American economy.

Without these figures we end up in a situation where one side points to one anecdote (the people getting fed up and leaving or working around the system), while the other side claims that those people are few and far between, and in many cases the effects on investment are negligible.
Getting hard figures for this kind of data is next to impossible but there are those that try to figure it out!
"Data on the value of wealth held offshore is hard to come by since neither governments nor the international financial institutions seems either able or willing to research the global picture.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS)1, an institution controlled by banks, records bank deposits by country. According to their estimates, in June 2004 offshore bank deposits totaled US$2.7 trillion offshore out of $14.4
trillion total bank deposits. This means that approximately one-fifth of all deposits are held offshore2. However, this figure relates solely to cash. It
excludes all other financial assets such as stocks, shares and bonds, and the value of tangible assets such as real estate, gold and even yachts held
offshore as well as shares in private companies. These assets are typically controlled through offshore companies, foundations and trusts, the latter not even being registered let alone required to furnish annual statements of account. The value of these assets is therefore unknown and harder to determine.
In 1998, Merrill Lynch / Cap Gemini’s ‘World Wealth Report’ estimated that one third of the wealth of the world’s high net-worth individuals (HNWIs as banks refer to them) is held offshore. According to their most recent wealth report, the value of assets held by HNWIs with liquid financial assets of $1 million or more was $27.2 trillion in 2002/3, of which $8.5 trillion (31%) was held offshore. This figure is increasing by approximately $600 billion annually, which brings the current figure to about $9.7 trillion."
There is more but in summary;
Summary
Our research suggests that:
Ø approximately US$11.5 trillion of assets are held offshore by high net-worth individuals;
Ø the annual income that these assets might earn amounts to US$860 billion annually;
Ø the tax not paid as a result of these funds being held offshore might exceed US$255 billion each year.
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore.pdf

[steelish]

The Mellon study sounds interesting do you have a link to it?

Because Wikipedia has been used by others...here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_W._Mellon)

[Lion]

An FYI to everyone



"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal,... "
Nope, this is not in our Constitution, it's in our Bill of Rights - and he knows this, or should, since he studied the Constitution during college.

Helping a friend over some stuff, I came across what the Bill of Rights really is.

The Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html


So he did get that part right.

[steelish]

An FYI to everyone



Helping a friend over some stuff, I came across what the Bill of Rights really is.

The Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html


So he did get that part right.


It wasn't in the Bill of Rights either. By the time I realized I typed an error, it was too late to edit it, although I did post clarification in post#52. The quote is from our Declaration of Independence, NOT the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution.

[Lion]

It wasn't in the Bill of Rights either. By the time I realized I typed an error, it was too late to edit it, although I did post clarification in post#52. The quote is from our Declaration of Independence, NOT the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution.


Oh sorry, my mistake. At least I learned more on the constitution/bill of rights last night. Some interesting stuff in there.

[SadisticNature]

Must disagree! The whole point of a "progressive" tax is to punish the "rich". Progressives do not see Government as a "provider of services". They see Government as a provider. The entire intent of the "Progressive" movement is shown by;
"1. To change other people by having them adopt the Progressive vision of middle class
behavior and thought...this particularly applied to issues of recreation and leisure, the
status of the family, sexual orientation and behavior. Progressives sought to revive a
sense of Victorian family and social values early in the twentieth-century

2. To end class conflict between the "have's"(the privileged class) and "the have less," (or
have not)

3. To effect a measure of control over big business

4. To segregate society into groups, based on occupation (labor, management,etc) race,
sex (laws protecting women insured secondary status in employment), and immigration
status. Segregation of the races was seen by Progressives as a method of stabilizing
race relations.
Four Main Goals of the Progressive Movement are-
1.Protecting Social Welfare.
2.Fostering Efficiencey.
3.Moral Improvement.
4.Economic Reform.
(Answers.com)
Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy. Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction--the vision--needed for true progressive government. "All that progressives ask or desire," wrote Woodrow Wilson, "is permission--in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word--to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine." The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, (shows that Progressivism (seeks to) transform American politics. What was that transformation? It was a total rejection in theory, and a partial rejection in practice, of the principles and policies on which America had been founded and on the basis of which the Civil War had been fought and won only a few years earlier. When I speak of Progressivism, I mean the movement that rose to prominence between about 1880 and 1920.
(The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics by Thomas G. West and William A. Schambra)"

Furthermore, the entire postwar prosperity period 1946-1973 was defined by some of the highest income taxes in US history. If those tax levels were actually causing people to avoid investing the GDP growth seen over this period would not be occurring.


Its not staggering now? With projections to continue to grow! The numbers you cite are largely correct. Yet the deficit in 1989, though a large number was somewhat of an insignificant increase. The 1980 deficit was 2.65% of GDP and 1989 was 2.78%. The GDP grew from some five trillion to just over seven trillion


Your argument seems to more closely approximate the "Progressive" system of Wilson. This would not be good for the country as indicated above.


You are going to have to define "significant period". In looking at the debt data for the last century the national debt grew in 46 of the years. And the longest run of the debt reducing has never exceeded four years


Yet in that same period of time the number of people in the "middle class" and the group above that has increased, as well as the level of income! Covering exactly 30 years from today is difficult but 30 years from 2008 is 1978. Per capita income was $6,455 (1978 $), or $19,556 (2008) $). Per capita in 2008 $26,964. Using IRS data the people in the top 10% of earners increased by five million from 1986 to 2006. Those in the top 25% group minus the top 10% grew by three million. Miniumum income for the 10% started at $48,656 and grew to $108,904. The top 25% (minus the top 10%) minimum income rose from $32,242 to $64,702. So not only did the income rise but the number of people in each group also rose, significantly!


That is a direct plank from the "Progressive" agenda. Only Government can make the social "boo-boos" better.
I believe it was the message that generated your response about hidden monies. There exist a tax strategy that has been shown capable of returning all of that "hidden" money to the banks inside the country. As well as bringing back the companies that are now offshore as well. Not only that but will influence foreign companies to locate their operations here. It also will increase the tax base, by favoring no one!

The Mellon study sounds interesting do you have a link to it?


Getting hard figures for this kind of data is next to impossible but there are those that try to figure it out!
"Data on the value of wealth held offshore is hard to come by since neither governments nor the international financial institutions seems either able or willing to research the global picture.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS)1, an institution controlled by banks, records bank deposits by country. According to their estimates, in June 2004 offshore bank deposits totaled US$2.7 trillion offshore out of $14.4
trillion total bank deposits. This means that approximately one-fifth of all deposits are held offshore2. However, this figure relates solely to cash. It
excludes all other financial assets such as stocks, shares and bonds, and the value of tangible assets such as real estate, gold and even yachts held
offshore as well as shares in private companies. These assets are typically controlled through offshore companies, foundations and trusts, the latter not even being registered let alone required to furnish annual statements of account. The value of these assets is therefore unknown and harder to determine.
In 1998, Merrill Lynch / Cap Gemini’s ‘World Wealth Report’ estimated that one third of the wealth of the world’s high net-worth individuals (HNWIs as banks refer to them) is held offshore. According to their most recent wealth report, the value of assets held by HNWIs with liquid financial assets of $1 million or more was $27.2 trillion in 2002/3, of which $8.5 trillion (31%) was held offshore. This figure is increasing by approximately $600 billion annually, which brings the current figure to about $9.7 trillion."
There is more but in summary;
Summary
Our research suggests that:
Ø approximately US$11.5 trillion of assets are held offshore by high net-worth individuals;
Ø the annual income that these assets might earn amounts to US$860 billion annually;
Ø the tax not paid as a result of these funds being held offshore might exceed US$255 billion each year.
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore.pdf

Despite our prior discussion.

Your revert to "PROGRESSIVES" as meaning people from the Woodrow Wilson administration when in context it should be clear that was not the meaning being used.

As for your actual accusation, if taxes exist to punish people they wouldn't exist at all. Taxes exist because the government has expenses and taxes give them the revenues to pay for those expenses. No government has ever advocated for taxes as a punitive measure, and I'd be very interested to see a direct account of such.

Point 2 is a well established strategy for reducing the impact of crime in society that has had great success in many European countries and in Canada.

Your statistics actually don't prove much at all. In particular, saying that the number of Americans in the top 25% of US incomes grew by 3 million is the exact same thing as saying that the US population grew by 12 million and doesn't measure anything meaningful about class disparity. Similarly, your salary figures are meaningless because they aren't adjusted for inflation.

The standard comparison is to put the money into currency at a fixed time (for example 1970 US Dollars) and describe the salaries in terms of that. Since this practice is taught in 1st year business calculus and is known by every serious economist whomever is generating the numbers is either intentionally creating misleading data, or is uneducated. The same applies to the salary figures for various strata.

Regarding your offshore data, the study is inherently bad because no attempt is made to classify which assets can actually be internalized. A sizable percentage of offshore assets in this day and age relate to American Owned offshore businesses and some of them are from countries which have no tax agreement with the US and thus by law are taxed in the country in which the money is earned (local to the asset).

In 1998 the figure was 33% in 2002 it was 31%, yet your source argues it is increasing rapidly, this claim seems questionable at best.

Note that offshore asset income is capital gains. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than 29.65%, which suggests that the $255 billion figure in the report is wrong. It is also disingenuous to list recreational assets as part of the problem as taxes are based on INCOME not ASSETS.

Lastly, no changes to tax law are going to make me able to have shares of a Japanese company listed on Nikkei as an asset in the United States.

[SadisticNature]

Because Wikipedia has been used by others...here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_W._Mellon)

This has some of his history but what I was curious about was the actual study you quoted earlier.

[SadisticNature]

I believe this is referred to as denial!


Do not know what your source is but it sounds a lot like wishful thinking to protect the real perp.


Simple statements with no support. A logical look at this should suffice. If people have more of the money they worked for then they can choose what to do with that money; save it, spend it, invest it. In each case this money creates work for someone, that work generates income that income is taxed. since there is an increase in income then the revenues to the Government increase.
The greatest cause for Government income problems is the fact that there is no restraint on the Government checkbook. Would you not love the ability to increase you credit line if you were getting close to that limit? Even under the current conditions, when any sane person would realize that income is down and the need to cut spending the Government is doing just the opposite! Where does the Government get its money? Especially when they have "promised" to see that there is not one dime in tax increase for people earning under a certain amount. What is a fee on a business other than a tax? When taxes are increased on a business who pays that tax?

You are in denial.

You claim there is no evidence for my claim that tax cuts don't pay for themselves, yet ever since the Reagan Administration the national deficit has grown at a faster rate than the GDP.

This obviously fails. At the logical extreme if taxes are 0% then no amount of additional work will generate additional income. With taxes being cut from 70% to 30% on the top bracket the amount of taxable income generating activity would need to increase by 233%, which historically has not been the case. You talk of everything in terms of general principles with no sound numbers to evaluate them. Decreasing taxes will increase productivity in many situations. The question becomes does the productivity increase result in enough additional tax revenue to make up for the tax decrease. You have attempted to completely ignore the downside of increasing taxes, while glorifying the upside. You avoid any attempt to use numbers because the numbers we have disprove your argument.

It's very nice to believe tax decreases are good for the government, after all who doesn't want to pay less taxes, but the evidence shows they are not.

Furthermore, it's easy to say the problem is government spending, yet somehow in 30 years no one has managed to slash the programs causing the problem. Note that not a single person voted against Medicare which is a bad offender in terms of spending. Maybe its because government programs actually correspond to things we value as a society and should be paid for?

[steelish]

This has some of his history but what I was curious about was the actual study you quoted earlier.

His plan was explained in that Wiki article...

The Mellon plan
Mellon came into office with a goal of reducing the huge federal debt from World War I. To do this, he needed to increase the federal revenue and cut spending. He believed that if the tax rates were too high, then the people would try to avoid paying them. He observed that as tax rates had increased during the first part of the 20th century, investors moved to avoid the highest rates—by choosing tax-free municipal bonds, for instance.

As Mellon wrote in 1924:
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business.

If the rates were set more reasonably, taxpayers would have less incentive to avoid paying. His controversial theory was that by lowering the tax rates across the board, he could increase the overall tax revenue.

Andrew Mellon's plan had four main points:

Cut the top income tax rate from 73 to 24 percent
Cut taxes on low incomes from 4 to 1/2 percent
Reduce the Federal Estate tax
Efficiency in government

Mellon believed that the income tax should remain progressive, but with lower rates than those enacted during World War I. He thought that the top income earners would only willingly pay their taxes if rates were 25% or lower. Mellon proposed tax rate cuts, which Congress enacted in the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The top marginal tax rate was cut from 73% to 58% in 1922, 50% in 1923, 46% in 1924, 25% in 1925, and 24% in 1929. Rates in lower brackets were also cut substantially, relieving burdens on the middle-class, working-class, and poor households.

By 1926 65% of the income tax revenue came from incomes $300,000 and higher, when five years prior, less than 20% did. During this same period, the overall tax burden on those that earned less than $10,000 dropped from $155 million to $32.5 million.

Mellon also championed preferential treatment for "earned" income relative to "unearned" income. As he argued in his 1924 book, Taxation: The People's Business

The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man’s life and it descends to his heirs. Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their mettle and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end.

Mellon's policy reduced the public debt (largely inherited from World War I obligations) from almost $26 billion in 1921 to about $16 billion in 1930, but then the Depression caused it to rise again. By 1935, Franklin Roosevelt had gone back to high tax rates and wiped out Andrew Mellon's initiatives. The top tax rate went to 80% by 1935 and the federal government increased excise taxes in an attempt to make up for the lost revenue.

[SadisticNature]

His plan was explained in that Wiki article...

The Mellon plan
Mellon came into office with a goal of reducing the huge federal debt from World War I. To do this, he needed to increase the federal revenue and cut spending. He believed that if the tax rates were too high, then the people would try to avoid paying them. He observed that as tax rates had increased during the first part of the 20th century, investors moved to avoid the highest rates—by choosing tax-free municipal bonds, for instance.

As Mellon wrote in 1924:
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business.

If the rates were set more reasonably, taxpayers would have less incentive to avoid paying. His controversial theory was that by lowering the tax rates across the board, he could increase the overall tax revenue.

Andrew Mellon's plan had four main points:

Cut the top income tax rate from 73 to 24 percent
Cut taxes on low incomes from 4 to 1/2 percent
Reduce the Federal Estate tax
Efficiency in government

Mellon believed that the income tax should remain progressive, but with lower rates than those enacted during World War I. He thought that the top income earners would only willingly pay their taxes if rates were 25% or lower. Mellon proposed tax rate cuts, which Congress enacted in the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The top marginal tax rate was cut from 73% to 58% in 1922, 50% in 1923, 46% in 1924, 25% in 1925, and 24% in 1929. Rates in lower brackets were also cut substantially, relieving burdens on the middle-class, working-class, and poor households.

By 1926 65% of the income tax revenue came from incomes $300,000 and higher, when five years prior, less than 20% did. During this same period, the overall tax burden on those that earned less than $10,000 dropped from $155 million to $32.5 million.

Mellon also championed preferential treatment for "earned" income relative to "unearned" income. As he argued in his 1924 book, Taxation: The People's Business

The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man’s life and it descends to his heirs. Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their mettle and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end.

Mellon's policy reduced the public debt (largely inherited from World War I obligations) from almost $26 billion in 1921 to about $16 billion in 1930, but then the Depression caused it to rise again. By 1935, Franklin Roosevelt had gone back to high tax rates and wiped out Andrew Mellon's initiatives. The top tax rate went to 80% by 1935 and the federal government increased excise taxes in an attempt to make up for the lost revenue.

I've seen all of that, but earlier when talking about Mellon you mentioned a study he did, and its that that I wanted to see.

[steelish]

Andrew Mellon, Taxation: the People's Business (1924) (http://ia331306.us.archive.org/2/items/taxationthepeopl033026mbp/taxationthepeopl033026mbp.pdf)

I hope this helps somewhat, SadisticNature. I am still searching for a specific study published in 1921, I will post that if I find it.

[denuseri]

And now state of the union part duex?

Hot from the pressess of the AP:
WASHINGTON – Pleading for unity in a newly divided government, President Barack Obama implored Democratic and Republican lawmakers to rally behind his vision of economic revival for an anxious nation, declaring in his State of the Union address Tuesday night: "We will move forward together or not at all."

The president unveiled an agenda of carefully balanced political goals: a burst of spending on education, research, technology and transportation to make the nation more competitive, alongside pledges, in the strongest terms of his presidency, to cut the deficit and smack down spending deemed wasteful to America. Yet he never explained how he'd pull that off or what specifically would be cut.

Obama spoke to a television audience in the millions and a Congress sobered by the assassination attempt against one if its own members, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Her seat sat empty, and many lawmakers of competing parties sat together in a show of support and civility. Yet differences were still evident, as when Democrats stood to applaud his comments on health care and tax cuts while Republicans next to them sat mute.

In his best chance of the year to connect with the country, Obama devoted most of his hour-long prime-time address to the economy, the issue that dominates concern in a nation still reeling from a monster recession — and the one that will shape his own political fortunes in the 2012 election.

Eager to show some budget toughness, Obama pledged to veto any bill with earmarks, the term used for lawmakers' pet projects. House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans applauded. But Obama's promise drew a rebuke from his own party even before he spoke, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the president had enough power and that plans to ban earmarks were "a lot of pretty talk."

Obama's proposals Tuesday night ranged across the scope of government: cutting the corporate tax, providing wireless services for almost the whole nation, consolidating government agencies and freezing most discretionary federal spending for the next five years. In the overarching theme of his speech, the president told the lawmakers: "The future is ours to win."

In essence, Obama reset his agenda as he heads toward a re-election bid with less clout and limited time before the campaign consumes more attention.

Yet Republicans have dismissed his "investment" proposals as merely new spending. Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, giving the GOP's response, said the nation was at "a tipping point" leading to a dire future if federal deficits aren't trimmed.

The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the president had gotten the message from the November midterm elections and "changed the tone and the rhetoric from the first two years."

Obama entered the House chamber to prolonged applause, and to the unusual sight of Republicans and Democrats seated next to one another rather than on different sides of the center aisle. And he began with a political grace note, taking a moment to congratulate Boehner, the new Republican speaker of the House.

Calling for a new day of cooperation, Obama said: "What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight but whether we can work together tomorrow."

On a night typically known for its political theater, the lawmakers sometimes seemed subdued, as if still in the shadow of the Arizona shootings.

Many in both parties wore black-and-white lapel ribbons, signifying the deaths in Tucson and the hopes of the survivors. Giffords' husband was watching the speech from her bedside, as he held her hand. At times, Obama delivered lighter comments, seeming to surprise his audience with the way he lampooned what he suggested was the government's illogical regulation of salmon.

Halfway through his term, Obama stepped into this moment on the upswing, with a series of recent legislative wins in his pocket and praise from all corners for the way he responded to the shooting rampage in Arizona. But he confronts the political reality is that he must to lead a divided government for the first time, with more than half of all Americans disapproving of the way he is handling the economy.

Over his shoulder a reminder of the shift in power on Capitol Hill: Boehner, in the seat that had been held by Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Obama conceded that everything he asked for would prompt more partisan disputes. "It will take time," he said. "And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The cost. The details. The letter of every law."

Obama used the stories of some of the guests sitting with his wife, Michelle, to illustrate his points, including a small business owner who, in the tradition of American ingenuity, designed a drilling technology that helped rescue the Chilean miners.

Flanking Mrs. Obama in the gallery: Brianna Mast, the wife of a soldier seriously injured in Afghanistan, and Roxanna Green, mother of the nine-year girl killed in the Tucson shooting.

The president cast the challenges facing the United States as bigger than either party. He said the nation was facing a new "Sputnik" moment, and he urged efforts to create a wave of innovation to create jobs and a vibrant economic future, just as the nation vigorously responded to the Soviets beating the U.S. into space a half century ago.

There was less of the see-saw applause typical of State of the Union speeches in years past, where Democrats stood to applaud certain lines and Republicans embraced others. Members of the two parties found plenty of lines worthy of bipartisan applause.

In a speech with little focus on national security, Obama appeared to close the door on keeping any significant U.S. military presence in Iraq beyond the end of the year. "This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq," the president said.

The president reiterated his call for a comprehensive immigration bill, although there appears little appetite for it Congress. Another big Obama priority that stalled and died in the last Congress, a broad effort to address global climate change, did not get a mention in the State of the Union. Nor did gun control or the struggling effort to secure peace in the Middle East.

Obama worked in a bipartisan shout-out to Vice President Joe Biden and Boehner as two achievers emblematic of the American dream, the former a working-class guy from Scranton, Pa., the latter once a kid who swept floors in his father's Cincinnati bar. Biden and Boehner shook hands over that, and Boehner, clearly moved, flashed a thumbs-up.

After dispensing with all the policy, the president ended in a sweeping fashion.

"We do big things," the president said. "The idea of America endures."

[Stealth694]

Enough about " Big Things " I would settle for getting things done. To many times we hear about the Grandious plans govt has. Problem is they never plan them very well and we usually have to pay several times what the original cost was. Instead of Big Things that seldom work, Lets do small things that do work.