State Of The Union

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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!

[steelish]

This 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.

[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]

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?

[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]

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.

[DuncanONeil]

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

This should scare any Americans reading this forum.

[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/sh...ad.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.

[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

[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/sh...ad.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

[steelish]

Andrew Mellon, Taxation: the People's Business (1924)

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.