# State of the Union



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

Tonight.. and looks like the President is going to outline some pretty progressive ideas to help the middle class..   Who wants to take bets on how the GOP dominated joint Congress is going to embarrass themselves tonight.   Who is going to yell out something?  Like "YOU LIE" ?   Which SCOTUS Justice is going to roll their eyes and shake their head in disgust?   Or are they more than likely sit on their hands.. refuse to applaud or stand up and in general look like they all sucked a sour lemon?  Probably the latter..  BUT you never know what will happen with the latest bunch of wing-nuts...... stay tuned!!


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2015)

One thing sure about your post.   You are extremely biased and have your mind fixed on PARTY differences, even when exaggerated and maybe even wrong.   I am sure that some Democrats have also done incorrect and likely wrong things during the State of the Union messages when it was a Republican President speaking.


----------



## 911 (Jan 20, 2015)

Didn't someone just mention how people on this forum are respectful of one another? i guess that does not apply to everyone.


----------



## Josiah (Jan 20, 2015)

Actually Bob, I think Representative Joe Wilson's yell was totally unprecedented in the annals of discourtesy at a State of the Union Speech. I think if you're going to speculate that some Democrat has done something comparable, you need to give a reference.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

I'm interested in the ideas he has to offer to the Middle Class... but must admit.. a GOP outburst would be entertaining..   Personally, whatever he outlines, there will be little or NO chance the GOP will go along with it and that it will pass the house or Senate.   BUT......  I understand there will be things like Pre-K for all..  free 2 year junior college tuition,  raising the minimum wage... mandatory 7 days paid sick days and 6 weeks paid maternity leave.. all paid for by an increase in the capital gain tax for the top 1% from 25% to 28% (which it was under Reagan)... and elimination of the inheritance tax for the very wealthy.   

NOW..... just HOW is the GOP going to not be for any of that without cementing the idea people already have that they ONLY care about the very wealthy and NOT raising their taxes..and couldn't care less about the average American?   People are going to notice.. doncha think?   AND it will only prove their conception about the GOP as being controlled by Corporations and the Wealthy..    Nice little mouse trap there Mr. President!!!


----------



## LadyElaine (Jan 20, 2015)

I think people should be respectful when the President is speaking. The American public doesn't like to see disrespectful behavior by our government no matter whose side we are on


----------



## Davey Jones (Jan 20, 2015)

oh sorry, Ill be watching The Big Bang Theory also called SOTU speech.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> oh sorry, Ill be watching The Big Bang Theory also called SOTU speech.





I think it's great he is going on the offensive...  what has he got to lose.  ALL his ideas are very popular with Americans and the polls confirm that.  NOW that the GOP has the reigns so to speak... THEY have to come up with some popular ideas too if they want to win in 2016..   They won't... because their puppet masters won't let them.    

Hey,  has anyone listened to Romney the last few days trying to pretend he is Mr. Populace?????   What a hoot...  Just how believable is that?   Mr. 47%.  Give me a break.   Goes to show you how hard this is going to be for them.  They have to PRETEND they care about Americans yet refuse to upset the Doner class and keep the money moving upward.  It should be fun watching them tie themselves into pretzels..


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> Actually Bob, I think Representative Joe Wilson's yell was totally unprecedented in the annals of discourtesy at a State of the Union Speech. I think if you're going to speculate that some Democrat has done something comparable, you need to give a reference.



And just one example of how this particular president has been the most disrespected in history..NEVER has anyone dared to show that level of disrespect to a sitting President..let alone one addressing the Joint Chambers...  yet it's somehow just fine to do that to President Obama...  ..... wonder why..


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2015)

For a popular idea maybe Obama should show us how he is going to rid the US of the $18 trillion debt he has developed with his never budgeted changes to our way of life.   Unfunded things that someday someone else will have to pay for eventually.   Obama had lots of ideas, still does, but never figured out how to pay for it at all.   When Obama took over the debt was at about $11 trillion and now at $18 trillion and still rising so for 6 years our debt increased by $7 trillion.    Two more years to go, so will the debt keep  rising?    I hope not and maybe the conservative congress will try to stop the rise and maybe start the pay back that our far left congress Senate and Obama pushed.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 20, 2015)

It's times like these I'm grateful for cable and highlight reels. For the next week the speech will be analyzed, replayed, picked apart and exploited for either party's favor.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> It's times like these I'm grateful for cable and highlight reels. For the next week the speech will be analyzed, replayed, picked apart and exploited for either party's favor.



But you ARE planning on listening tonight aren't you?


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2015)

Well yes, I will be listening to Obama babble for an hour or so.    But then later it will all be boiled down to about 10 minutes or so of real content that will be discussed for the next few days or weeks.   Obama is far too political and not enough practical.


----------



## Debby (Jan 20, 2015)

Sounds like Quicksilver isn't the only one with a definite party bias eh Bob?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

Debby said:


> Sounds like Quicksilver isn't the only one with a definite party bias eh Bob?



I fully admit my bias...  I have studied the GOP platform and history.  There is just about nothing I can agree with.  BUT it's pretty good for a laugh I must admit.


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2015)

Party politics and electing on party are both way wrong.   We should get rid of 'party' and start voting for people, the way our constitution was set up.   And not that two 'parties' have more or less taken over our election system we can still vote for people and forget the 'party' while doing so.    Vote for the people and everything will be better for all of us.    Each party has some very fine folks involved and also some very political misfits that have big mouths, selfish ways, don't mind breaking the idea of a Republic to get their ways.   And it gets worse each year and since 1970? I think the US government has gone away from how we are supposed to have a Congress that works across he lines and tries to get best for all to be passed.   Best for all means more than just what one party decides.   It has to be more on a joint agreement among the Congress folk, and if the results of Congress irritates a President, so be it.   The President rejects and if Congress puts enough votes together, they over ride the President.   Just the way our government is supposed to run.

This Congressional running of our government has not been allowed to happen for several years now.   It needs to change back to the way our Constitution says.   Maybe too, we need to have limits on how long these Senators and Representatives can hold office in order to break up these built in 'gangs' of biased and one minded politicians that don't care about the Constitution, the budgets, what the people are asking for, etc.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 20, 2015)

Haven't watched state of union all the way through in decades either party.

Hmmm, lets see, first the slow entrace,hand shakes, camera pans to political celebs, standing o, applause. Verbage then applause, more verbage more applause, more verbage applause possibly a standing o, camera pans to faces you are supposed to know and love. Verbage, applause, standing Os and camera pans-been there done that. 

The supposed guest list includes an illegal alien.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/19/state-of-the-union-guests-include-illegal-immigran/

Pre and post speech banter is where the action is. Actual legislation/process are the playoffs for the prez's programs.

The speech will feed the commentORs for weeks. It will analyzed as much as a controversial Super Bowl play.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 20, 2015)

LadyElaine said:


> I think people should be respectful when the President is speaking. The American public doesn't like to see disrespectful behavior by our government no matter whose side we are on



I completely agree.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 20, 2015)

I just heard there'll be a special guest, a 101 year old Pearl Harbor survivor.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I just heard there'll be a special guest, a 101 year old Pearl Harbor survivor.




And also 103 year old voting rights activist Amelia Boynton will attend as a guest of Congresswoman Terri Sewell.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 20, 2015)

[h=1]Daily Beast: SOTU Sneak Peek: Obama to Hit Citizens United[/h]Reportedly, another new initiative Obama is going to be announcing at tonight’s speech will attempt to rein in secret campaign money. 

Many of President Obama’s policy priorities have been showcased, but he’s surely kept a few surprises to unveil in his State of the Union address Tuesday evening. Among them, sources say, is a major push to rein in the flood of secret money capturing our democracy and making a mockery of one-person, one-vote. With his approval rating now nudging 50 percent, Obama may be in the midst of a fourth-quarter comeback as he reclaims the high ground on his campaign promises and seeks to restore his credentials as an activist outsider shaking up Washington. 

It was five SOTUs ago when Obama said the Supreme Court in its Citizens United ruling “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign companies—to spend without limits in our elections.” Cameras zeroed in on Justice Samuel Alito, seated directly in front of Obama in the House Chamber, mouthing the word “wrong.” Alito had voted with the majority the previous week in the Court’s 5-4 decision. 

Thursday is the fifth anniversary of Citizens United, and reformers have been told that the president may announce executive action in his SOTU speech that would require businesses contracting with the government to disclose political contributions after contracts have been awarded. This would ensure that the contracting process is blind, but also give the public (and the media) the information needed to connect the dots to look for backroom deals or conflicts of interest. 

This should be a no-brainer for anyone wondering how the wheels get greased for government contracts, and it will be a significant breakthrough in exposing the influence of campaign contributions whether or not Obama announces executive action in the SOTU itself, or in the days following. Republicans once supported disclosure, but since Citizens United opened up more vehicles for money given anonymously, the GOP has taken a hands-off approach. Democrats, who once opposed disclosure as not going far enough, are now its biggest advocates. 



Three guesses who just happens to have *multi-million dollar contracts with the Department of Defense*? The federal-government-hating *Koch Brothers*, that's who! They have _tens of millions of dollars in defense contracts_ with the federal government, and so does *Rushie-boy Limbaugh*. He has a federal government contract that allows his hate-fest-show to be broadcast on the American Forces Network. 


Hee hee hee........:clap:


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

GO PREZ!!    I love this man..


----------



## Lon (Jan 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Tonight.. and looks like the President is going to outline some pretty progressive ideas to help the middle class..   Who wants to take bets on how the GOP dominated joint Congress is going to embarrass themselves tonight.   Who is going to yell out something?  Like "YOU LIE" ?   Which SCOTUS Justice is going to roll their eyes and shake their head in disgust?   Or are they more than likely sit on their hands.. refuse to applaud or stand up and in general look like they all sucked a sour lemon?  Probably the latter..  BUT you never know what will happen with the latest bunch of wing-nuts...... stay tuned!!



Your post shows your stripes. Tsk tsk


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

Lon said:


> Your post shows your stripes. Tsk tsk



Absol-flippin-lutely!!   and darn proud of it too!!


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> *Daily Beast: SOTU Sneak Peek: Obama to Hit Citizens United*
> 
> Reportedly, another new initiative Obama is going to be announcing at tonight’s speech will attempt to rein in secret campaign money.
> 
> ...



This is really going to set some GOP hair on fire!!   Now what are they going to do??   AHHHH...  Impeach!!    why?   because the Kochs will tell them too!!


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jan 20, 2015)

All I can say about tonight's State of the Union Address is........we *NEED*, and I mean, *REALLY NEED*, a woman for President! Just like old Forest Gump said, "And that's all I have to say about that."


----------



## Josiah (Jan 20, 2015)

I see tonight's speech as an opportunity to introduce the ideas that will make up Democratic platform for the 2016 campaign. I'll be very interested to see what Hillary has to say in the weeks to come.


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> *Daily Beast: SOTU Sneak Peek: Obama to Hit Citizens United*
> 
> Reportedly, another new initiative Obama is going to be announcing at tonight’s speech will attempt to rein in secret campaign money.
> 
> ...



You are forgetting to tell about millionaires like Sorros, and others, that dump money on to the Democrat party stuff just like you claim the Koch's dump money on the Republicans.   Also for got to tell about GE, a major manufacturer, that somehow escapes from paying much at all into taxes but are one of the Democrats big supporters.

Money goes both ways and should be controlled, contained, publicized, in order to put all this crap going around into proper perspective.   Maybe Obama has a good money plan.    Worth a listen tonight.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 20, 2015)

We don't have anything like this event over here unless you include the Governor General (or the Queen if she is in the country which she usually isn't) reading a set speech at the opening of parliament each year. The speech is written by the government of the day to outline their agenda for legislation.

There is very little pomp and only polite applause. It passes unnoticed by the populace.

However, we do get news of the State of the Union address. ABC radio this morning said that most of it was already leaked, that it was ambitious for an end of term president and would most likely provoke Pavlovian rage from the Republicans.

Do report in detail all that happens for us out-of-towners.


----------



## darroll (Jan 20, 2015)

The democrats do not need campaign money, they give away free cell phones to the loyal.


----------



## Josiah (Jan 20, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> We don't have anything like this event over here unless you include the Governor General (or the Queen if she is in the country which she usually isn't) reading a set speech at the opening of parliament each year. The speech is written by the government of the day to outline their agenda for legislation.
> 
> There is very little pomp and only polite applause. It passes unnoticed by the populace.
> 
> ...



Be assured you'll hear a lot about it tomorrow. But you should consider watching at least a portion on video, because it's really very entertaining as pure political theater. You have Michelle Obama in the audience sitting next to several "special guests", you have John Boehner the Republican House Speaker sitting immediately behind the President as he speaks, you have countless applause lines some of which even the Republicans feel obliged to stand up for. Sure the Brits do ceremony better, but this is as good as it gets here and well worth watching.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 20, 2015)

darroll said:


> The democrats do not need campaign money, they give away free cell phones to the loyal.



You still buying that crap?  :lofl:


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2015)

Also learned just today, the Kochs are not Republicans as some claim.   They really are considered to be Libertarians.   What ever that may mean.    Something I guess I will have to learn as I have heard of and met others that say they are Libertarians.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 20, 2015)

That means that they believe that they should be totally unfettered in their business dealings.
And possibly in their private lives as well.

Never mind what others say about them. How do they identify themselves?


----------



## AprilT (Jan 20, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> That means that they believe that they should be totally unfettered in their business dealings.
> And possibly in their private lives as well.
> 
> Never mind what others say about them. How do they identify themselves?



True. And these guys in particular don't want you to be able to pin a label on them period as they don't want a money trail politically, but, fortunately there is a trail and most of it coincides with the conservatives and republican party ideas.  From what I've gathered, they don't really call themselves Libertarians any more than Republicans they've kept close company with and fund what is called  think tanks of those parties.  

http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...-gop-koch-brothers-change-tactics-not-beliefs


----------



## BobF (Jan 20, 2015)

Thanks for those inputs on the Libertarians.   I guess I would agree in general.   We have far too much government now and for some we need more.   For me we need to go back at least 50 years and maybe further and have far less federal government and allow the states to handle their own problems.   Big government will just squander more money for their very own wages, benefits, facilities, and less of the tax money is left for the benefits of the citizens and taxed folks.

Right now, rather than just keeping squeezing more taxes from the wealthy, we should cut down lots of the not needed benefits and also start taxing among those over 50% of the people that are not taxed.    I would think a small tax on even the lowest income folks would help make it clear that when taking a so called benefit, all would know where some fo that money came from.   Sure different from the current government that wants to tax the very rich so all the rest of us can sit back and live off the benefits plans.   Soon the US will be just as poor as those European countries where over 20% or 30% do not work and live off the hand outs.   The US is far better than that and we should resist all this government meddling with our lives.   We are stuck right now with on going inflation that is rapidly eating away our ability too live frugally.    Our economy should be stopped where it is and allow cost of living and wages to settle into a more stable position.   Demanding much larger wages so the low income can afford to buy $4 hamburgers in the budget price Mac's and other low budget eating places.   Maybe lowering the taxes would be a good start.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 20, 2015)

We have a libertarian senator, David Leyonhjelm, elected in 2013.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Leyonhjelm

Here is a summary of his political views



> Leyonhjelm has been described as a "libertarian purist" who wants government "wound back to a minimal role in society".[SUP][32][/SUP]
> 
> In interviews, he has stated that he was initially drawn towards socialism, but turned away from it after travelling to socialist countries in Africa and Eastern Europe, and was later influenced by the writings of economist Milton Friedman.[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP]
> 
> ...



Leyonhjelm tends to vote with our conservative government on economic issues if they are clear cut. He will vote against then if any part of a bill offends his economic libertarianism views. He is against regulation of people's personal lives in that he votes for legalised abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage etc. This is where he differs from the above mentioned Family First Party's Bob Day who is essentially of the Christian right wing. Day would probably vote for family income support, Leyonhjelm would probably reject it. Day wouldn't have a bar of abortion, same sex marriage etc.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 20, 2015)

Just a quick check on the Koch brothers leads me to believe that they are indeed libertarians rather than either Republicans or Democrats



> The Koch brothers each made $10 million grants to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to fight the Bush administration over the PATRIOT Act.[SUP][55][/SUP][SUP][56][/SUP] According to _Reason_ magazine that $20 million is "substantially more than the Kochs have contributed to all political candidates combined for at least the last 15 years."[SUP][56][/SUP]



Their donations to educational institutions also a commitment to promotion of unfettered free enterprise.



> *Educational grants[edit]*
> 
> The Charles Koch Foundation (and in the case of Kansas schools, the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation) provides grants to nearly 270 U.S. colleges and universities for "projects that explore how the principles of free enterprise and classical liberalism promote a more peaceful and prosperous society".[SUP][57]
> [/SUP]
> ...



Libertarian is an appropriate label which I think they would be proud to wear.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jan 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> GO PREZ!!    I love this man..



Me too! It's 9:20 am in Thailand and on BBC World News.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 20, 2015)

It's on ABC News 24 too.
Our PM's ear must be very red as he talks about efforts to combat climate change.

What's wrong with the fellow behind him on his left?
Toothache or piles?


----------



## Ameriscot (Jan 20, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> It's on ABC News 24 too.
> Our PM's ear must be very red as he talks about efforts to combat climate change.
> 
> What's wrong with the fellow behind him on his left?
> Toothache or piles?



He's a republican and a total bast#rd.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 20, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> It's on ABC News 24 too.
> Our PM's ear must be very red as he talks about efforts to combat climate change.
> 
> What's wrong with the fellow behind him on his left?
> Toothache or piles?



Climate change is real but some knuckle-draggers prefer to ignore it.  It's the flat earth syndrome.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> It's on ABC News 24 too.
> Our PM's ear must be very red as he talks about efforts to combat climate change.
> 
> What's wrong with the fellow behind him on his left?
> Toothache or piles?



lol!!  That's John Boehner..Speaker of the House.. and a Republican leader.. Yeah.. he looks like he's been sucking lemons... Usually he's just drunk.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

Great SOTU!!   He is a great President.   Did you catch the idiots cheering when he said he had no more campaigns to run?   Loved the comeback..  OF course they are whining how RUDE the Prez was.. he shouldn't be that uppitty..


http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01...a-zings-rudeness-reminding-won-elections.html


We used to have a saying about hypocricy..   IOKIYAR   It's OK if you are Republican.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Just a quick check on the Koch brothers leads me to believe that they are indeed libertarians rather than either Republicans or Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah...  Libertarian....  Nice rhetoric... BUT it doesn't work..  Check it out... There has NEVER been a Libertarian government... ANYWHERE..   It would result in pure anarchy.  I suppose the closest to it would be Somalia.  Need I say more?


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2015)

Two years and Obama is gone.   Much of what he calls success has been done in his self defined special groups outside of the Congress reaches.    Technically legal but not the way our government is supposed to work.   Looks like we may have Hillary on the liberal side and still no real idea on the conservative side.   Looking forward to some changes, no matter which way it goes.


----------



## Josiah (Jan 21, 2015)

I thought SOTU 2015 was one of his best speeches.  Mr. Obama knows his prospects of getting Congress to agree are less than zero; Republicans dismissed his ideas before he even voiced them. That does not make them irrelevant. Mr. Obama was speaking not just to the present but to the future, to the 2016 presidential elections and even beyond. By simply raising the plight of the middle class (and, looming behind it, the larger issue of economic inequality), he has firmly inserted issues of economic fairness into the political debate. Hillary Rodham Clinton or whomever the Democrats nominate cannot ignore them now.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> I thought SOTU 2015 was one of his best speeches.  Mr. Obama knows his prospects of getting Congress to agree are less than zero; Republicans dismissed his ideas before he even voiced them. That does not make them irrelevant. Mr. Obama was speaking not just to the present but to the future, to the 2016 presidential elections and even beyond. By simply raising the plight of the middle class (and, looming behind it, the larger issue of economic inequality), he has firmly inserted issues of economic fairness into the political debate. Hillary Rodham Clinton or whomever the Democrats nominate cannot ignore them now.



Very true..  NO ONE... not even the POTUS, I'm afraid, believes this Congress will go along with any of this... but they dismiss this at their own peril.  All that was outlined is VERY popular with the general electorate.. not just Democrats, but many middle class republicans and Independents.    I believe I have stated in the past.. now that the GOP has the power in the House AND the Senate.. they need to show the American people how they will make the average persons life better.. They can continue to propose destructive policy.. but America is watching.    You are correct.. all the issues will be debated in the 2016 campaign.   I'm interested to see how the GOP handles this.. they have to placate their Big Money donors who are against just about all of the proposals made...  AND they have to convince the average American to vote for them... good luck with that..

IN addition to the Presidential race, there are 24 Republican Senate seats up for grabs in 2016...  many of them in states that Obama won in 2012.  I believe the General Election in 2016 is going to look MUCH different that the 2014 midterm.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jan 21, 2015)

My SIL called us last night asking if we were going to watch the SOTU and we said "yes". Then, she went on to tell me, what she thinks, is the bad things Obama wants to do and how he is going to start WWIII. I said "*what the heck are you talking about??".  *Then, she went on to say, "I'm scared for my grandchildren's future." Then, I said, "Gee, what was going on in the world when you were your grandkids age......Korea War was going on and then came Viet Nam when you were in your early 20's!" She didn't have a "come back" answer to that! 

I told her, "whatever Obama plans on doing, neither you or I are going to stop it, so why worry so much about it?" Then, I went on to tell her, "Just remember, there is more that Obama at the Conference Table. There are General's and Admiral's there as well, giving their military thoughts to him."

Actually, I think she is worried about her granddaughter's boyfriend, who just got a Promise Ring from him, that he will have to go to war.......if/when that happens. He is in the Army and graduated from Basic Training a few months ago. Thing is, whenever a person enlists in the military, he is NOT guaranteed that he won't end up going into battle for any kind of conflict that might happen. 

Basically, I told my SIL.........*CHILL OUT!! *


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

Is she forgetting that OBAMA didn't start the war in the Middle East?  AND that he voted AGAINST going into Iraq when he was a US Senator.. and that he has had to clean up Bushes and Cheney's mess for the last 6 years?   He is hardly a Hawk...  If Romney had been elected we would now be at war with Iran..  See what a good job the Right Wing Echo Chamber has done in brainwashing folks..?


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jan 21, 2015)

Actually, when I ask her what person she would want for President, she said "Romney". All I could say is "whatever!"



QuickSilver said:


> Is she forgetting that OBAMA didn't start the war in the Middle East?  AND that he voted AGAINST going into Iraq when he was a US Senator.. and that he has had to clean up Bushes and Cheney's mess for the last 6 years?   He is hardly a Hawk...  If Romney had been elected we would now be at war with Iran..  See what a good job the Right Wing Echo Chamber has done in brainwashing folks..?


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 21, 2015)

I thought the SOTU speech was great, he continues to reaffirm my belief in his intelligence and his ability to lead.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

ClassicRockr said:


> Actually, when I ask her what person she would want for President, she said "Romney". All I could say is "whatever!"



She mustn't need her Social Security and Medicare...  Nice to be so wealthy..


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jan 21, 2015)

SIL isn't wealthy by no imagination, but she does alright w/school retirement package. She doesn't get SS, bc she never had it taken out and she doesn't get Medicare either. Her Teacher retirement package has all the insurance she wants/needs. 



QuickSilver said:


> She mustn't need her Social Security and Medicare...  Nice to be so wealthy..


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

ClassicRockr said:


> SIL isn't wealthy by no imagination, but she does alright w/school retirement package. She doesn't get SS, bc she never had it taken out and she doesn't get Medicare either. Her Teacher retirement package has all the insurance she wants/needs.




That's fine!   Has she looked into what the GOP wants to do to public union pensions and healthcare packages?   Snip.. snip..


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2015)

Fact is that Obama did not give us SS or Medicare either.


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> That's fine!   Has she looked into what the GOP wants to do to public union pensions and healthcare packages?   Snip.. snip..



Well it is far too easy for public unions to demand what the taxpayers must put in for their extra extravagant benefits.   So sniping does become needed to get those benefits back into what the people can afford.   That really needs to happen to many government packages as well.

If in business they offer the best they can, or go out of business, as they can not charge more than the customers are willing to pay.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> Fact is that Obama did not give us SS or Medicare either.



We know that Bob, but he is and will prevent anymore attempts by Republicans from gutting or outright destroying it, which they have made concerted efforts to do now many times going back to the LBJ Presidency.


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2015)

Any efforts to get the US budgets back into manageable sizes and reduce the US debt may just have to do that and other items as well.   For this to happen will require both liberal and conservative efforts from all elected ones.


----------



## Josiah (Jan 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> Any efforts to get the US budgets back into manageable sizes and reduce the US debt may just have to do that and other items as well.   For this to happen will require both liberal and conservative efforts from all elected ones.



Republican tax cuts combined with Bush's war in Iraq have contributed greatly to raise the deficits. The Republicans refuse to learn from extensive experience that supply-side economics (cutting taxes especially for the very rich) increases the deficit. Oh yes and the financial crisis of 2007–08 didn't improve things either. Why Bob do you blame President Obama for the national debt?


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> Republican tax cuts combined with Bush's war in Iraq have contributed greatly to raise the deficits. The Republicans refuse to learn from extensive experience that supply-side economics (cutting taxes especially for the very rich) increases the deficit. Oh yes and the financial crisis of 2007–08 didn't improve things either. Why Bob do you blame President Obama for the national debt?



This is totally not true and I will post evidence that it is not true.    Also would like to know which charts Obama uses as he said our debts were down 2/3 in his speech last night.   Under Bush the debt was kept within the 7  trillion range until his last two years when the two Liberal took over Congress.   Then Pelosi and Reid just could not stop spending for unnecessary and unfunded things, just like Obama has continued to do.   Now we are at $18 trillion dollars of debt and still climbing.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif


----------



## rporter610 (Jan 21, 2015)

Friends,

I sure don't like to wake up and read all this sniping about President Obama.  As Jackie22, Quicksilver, Josiah9 and others have written, the President deserves respect because of his office, as well as the calm, nondramatic way that he handles crises.  I have studied presidential speeches for 35 years, and my assessment of last night's SOTU address was that it was well-organized, clear, and well-documented with examples.  

Many people seem to have forgotten that President Reagan's deregulation of banking, legislation approved by Congress, greed, corruption by many banks and investment brokerages, and overreaching by people buying homes they could not afford, all led to the giant Great Recession we have just come out of.  And they have forgotten how President Obama's stimulus package and the Federal Reserve's policy of "quantitative easing" (printing more money) avoided inflation and saved the auto industry.  I disagree with the loans made to the investment banking houses, but those loans have been repaid.

I, along with many of you, lost 1/3 of my retirement funds after 9/11 led to a stock market crash, and then again the housing crisis led to another stock market crash, where I lost almost all that I had gained back after 9/11.  But today, the stock market is twice as high as it was in 2008, and some have been able to build up their funds again.  

In the SOTU, President Obama reminded us of the values that most people hold dear: fairness, equality of opportunity, caring for veterans, education.  These values have been promoted by most presidents beginning with FDR.  Mr. Obama restated his belief that military force is not the first response that should be used when there is conflict among nations.  He emphasized that without a strong middle class, our country is not going to be able to maintain its status as a world power.  To have a strong middle class, there must be opportunity to succeed.

It doesn't matter what label is put on these beliefs and policies, whether Republican, Democratic, Independent, Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, or Progressive.  What matters, I think, is that Americans work toward achieving the shared values of fairness, equality of opportunity, etc.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 21, 2015)

*Some thoughts on the national debt:


National Debt Graph by President*

*Oct 24, 2014.* When did the National Debt go crazy? Why? Who’s to blame? Where is the debt headed? Compared to the US economy, the national debt is smaller than it was after World War II. But, take a look at what could have happened if three presidents had balanced their budgets.

*The National Debt: Voodoo from Wall Street*

*Oct 24, 2014.* What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets? How much lower would the debt be now? We’ll get to that shortly, but first, how did we get into this mess? This may just be the weirdest political tale you’ve every heard.

World War II cost a bundle, and the country started out in the Great Depression. It was flat broke. But Uncle Sam was popular and the country patriotic, and people were happy to lend him money. Compared to the size of the economy back then, the debt soon outstripped even today’s debt, and we won the war.







The data for actual Debt-as-%-of-GDP for 1940-2006 comes from George W. Bush’s OMB Historical Table 7.1 for FY 2008 — download. (spreadsheet)  (Why graph Debt / GDP ?)


After the war, they started paying off the debt, and the economy (and its GDP) grew. And for 35 years the debt kept getting smaller compared to the GDP. When it was the smallest (as compared to GDP) than it had been in 50 years, Reagan was elected (1980) and vowed to shrink it even more drastically.

 But he had an odd theory: Cut taxes and the government would collect so much more money that he could spend more and still pay down the debt. Even before he was elected, George H. W. Bush called this “Voodoo economics,” and so it was.

The result, of course, was that the debt stopped decreasing and shot through the roof, as seen in the graph above. By 1987, even Ron Paul (who loved the tax-cut part) blurted out: “How is it that the *party of balanced budgets*, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?” And so it had.

 Starting with a debt of $1 trillion, in eight years Reagan raised it to $2.8 trillion. Even relative to the bigger economy, this was as bad as it had been 28 years earlier. (And no, the House did not do it to him. The budgets Congress passed were almost identical to what he asked for and on average a tiny bit more balanced.)

*Why did he do it?*

So how the heck did this happen to the guy that rode to office on complaints of an out-of-control debt that was as big as a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high? How did he come to add another 128 miles to that stack?

Reagan took some economics in college, and he really did want to reduce the debt. But he got snookered by some Wall Street “economists” (mostly political journalists) who told him he could have his cake and eat it too. They came up with the brand-new theory, mentioned above, that said the government can collect *more* money by *reducing* taxes. Wouldn’t that be nice! That’s the supply-side economics that George H. W. Bush called Voodoo.It was first tested by Reagan. 

Bush I tried and failed to undo the Voodoo, and Bush II reinstated it after Clinton. Altogether there were 20 Voodoo budgets. And every single time the debt not only went up, it went up faster than the economy grew — usually much faster. Before the Voodoo, 26 of the previous 35 budgets resulted in the debt shrinking relative to GDP. Reagan’s first budget was the turning point.

Of course some supply-siders noticed this too, and when Treasury Sect. Paul O’Neil complained that cutting taxes would increase the deficit, V.P. Cheney just replied “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” In fact, many seemed to like the deficits and complain about them only when Democrats were in power. They saw them as helping to “strangle the government.”

*So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?*

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. 

So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be _*a balanced budget*_ — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.

So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?The answer is that *the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion!* 

So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this:

 When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. 

Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion.

 Then Clinton took over. Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt.

 Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

*Why this matters*

Supply-side economics is outrageously dishonest. The supply-siders didn’t even mind conning their own man Reagan. The tax-cut “theory” only actually applied to the rich. So the plan was to cut tax rates for the rich in half, which they did.

 To get this through they had to cut taxes for the middle class some too, but they counted on inflation pushing the middle class back into higher tax brackets. But cutting the top bracket had a permanent effect because there is no higher bracket to get pushed into.So not only was cutting taxes to raise money crazy, it was just a deception to cut taxes for the richest and then use the deficits to force cuts in services for the middle class and the poor. 

The Republicans have almost all gone over to the supply side now, and many, like Reagan, have been brainwashed into believing it. G.W. Bush claimed he would “retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time.” I think he actually believed that.

When the Voodoo started, that’s exactly when the debt went out of control. And 20 out of 20 budgets can’t be an accident. Especially when you consider that Clinton was handed a Voodoo budget headed in the wrong direction, stopped that, turned it around and ended up with the debt reduced from 66% to 58% of GDP.

But I need your help on this. Can you email this to a friend? (It’s set up for you here.) Or could you share this with one of the sharing buttons? (Note the 37,000 facebook likes, below. —Thanks, those have helped!)

There are a lot of lies in circulation. Blaming the Democrats for the debt is just one of them. 








SOURCE:  http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


----------



## rporter610 (Jan 21, 2015)

Seabreeze,
Thank you for an interesting explanation of the current national debt.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

Thank you Seabreeze.. an EXCELLENT find... and these paragraphs pretty well sum up what the GOP is doing to the American Middle class..  




> Supply-side economics is outrageously dishonest. The supply-siders didn’t even mind conning their own man Reagan. The tax-cut “theory” only actually applied to the rich. So the plan was to cut tax rates for the rich in half, which they did.





> To get this through they had to cut taxes for the middle class some too, but they counted on inflation pushing the middle class back into higher tax brackets. But cutting the top bracket had a permanent effect because there is no higher bracket to get pushed into.





> So not only was cutting taxes to raise money crazy, it was just a deception to cut taxes for the richest and then use the deficits to force cuts in services for the middle class and the poor.


 

People need to read your post CAREFULLY.. and then decide whether they want to continue to vote for Republicans..  Seriously people.. think about your own best interests. 

Ever wonder why Republicans spend like drunken sailors when they are in power.. Look at Bush II...  2 unfunded wars... Tax cuts for the wealthy....  Medicare part D on the credit card..    Because when the debt is high, they can then justify cutting programs the poor and Middle class depend on.  They have hated any social program ever implemented and have worked tirelessly to eliminate them.... OR privatize them so the wealthy can have a cut of the action.  THEN they turn around and blame the Democratic President in power for the problem.  They get away with this over and over... People need to wake up!


----------



## darroll (Jan 21, 2015)

Taxing the rich means:
Taxing the middle class.
Taxing the rich only means they are not taxing themselves.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

darroll said:


> Taxing the rich means:
> Taxing the middle class.
> Taxing the rich only means they are not taxing themselves.



care to explain?  Are you saying the Rich should not be taxed?


----------



## darroll (Jan 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> care to explain?  Are you saying the Rich should not be taxed?



Tax the rich if they can........................ but......................
most of the politicians are rich, go figure.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 21, 2015)

darroll said:


> Taxing the rich means:
> Taxing the middle class.
> Taxing the rich only means they are not taxing themselves.



Translation please.


----------



## Josiah (Jan 21, 2015)

BobF, if you want to blame President Obama for the deficit, what you have to do is come up with a list the new (in last 7 years) spending bills which the Democrats proposed and which he signed into law. I don't think you're going to come up with much of a list. The vast majority of government spending stems from legislation that was past prior to Obama taking office or are older spending bills which had to be recently renewed like the military budget. Remember the congress has really not been very productive in producing new legislation during Obama's administration.


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2015)

What a bunch of crap has just been published above.   Compared to what I have posted it is pure junk.   Pick some sort of comparison and adjust everything.   So go back to the charts I posted, two different sources, and they do agree with each other.   Our debt is no joke at all and it must be repayed soon or the US will enter into the same sort of bankruptcies some of our European friends have now entered.   For some to play that our national debts are just things to play with means we have big problems.

Go back to the chart I published just above this latest joke chart.    Follow the bottom line color bars and see just who was in charge at the times the debts ran up fastest and who was in charge when the increasing debts rising was stopped.    The red bars were for the Democrats and the blue bars were for the Republicans.   That information is enough to call the claims to be confused or false.

How about some of the fairness etc. that Obama has said is very important.    Trash mouth postings will gain little from those that do believe in fairness.


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> BobF, if you want to blame President Obama for the deficit, what you have to do is come up with a list the new (in last 7 years) spending bills which the Democrats proposed and which he signed into law. I don't think you're going to come up with much of a list. The vast majority of government spending stemd from legislation that was past prior to Obama taking office or are older spending bills which had to be recently renewed like the military budget. Remember the congress has really not been very productive in producing new legislation during Obama's administration.



As I said before, Obama has put most of his stuff in the hands of his special groups and they do not get any congressional look sees or approvals or budget adjustments.   They just happen because Obama has allowed them to happen.   In time all this has to be corrected.   The Republicans wrote items to be considered but Reid just stacked them up on his desk and no actions were taken.

And go back to my charts and look at the Democrat congress in charge as the debts go up.


----------



## darroll (Jan 21, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Translation please.



Taxing the rich sounds great.
The tax laws cover the rich peoples butts.
Hello middle class.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 21, 2015)

I am trying to learn about politics, and the views of both sides, all sides, whatever.  But I won't keep reading threads filled with "hate mail".  I love and respect the folks on this forum (and many are on this thread) that can post their business/information/opinions, without ripping, who they deem to be wrong, to shreds.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Jan 21, 2015)

Man are things getting *HEATED* up around here! Think I will just stick to my Classic Rock music and leave the politics to you folks. 

Let's see, what drum solo do I want to listen to next.......Chicago's "I'm A Man" or Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida"?


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 21, 2015)

ClassicRockr said:


> Man are things getting *HEATED* up around here! Think I will just stick to my Classic Rock music and leave the politics to you folks.
> 
> Let's see, what drum solo do I want to listen to next.......Chicago's "I'm A Man" or Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida"?



Does seem kinda warm.


----------



## darroll (Jan 21, 2015)

Someone said Bushes War:

  Bushes war?
  Military force against Saddam passed the House 296 to 133 and the Senate 77 to 23.
  The house and senate ran and hid from public opinion......... <chuckle>


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

darroll said:


> Someone said Bushes War:
> 
> Bushes war?
> Military force against Saddam passed the House 296 to 133 and the Senate 77 to 23.
> The house and senate ran and hid from public opinion......... <chuckle>




BECAUSE... Bush and Cheney  were 150% positive that Saddam had WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION..... hidden in every nook and Crannie...   and it was this out and out LIE that got the vote in Congress..  That has been well documented and proven...  Bush and Cheney wanted to go to war and used any way they could think of to trick Congress


----------



## Josiah (Jan 21, 2015)

I don't think quicksilver's posts on this thread have insulted any of the other participants. She has made her positive feelings about the President clear and she has explained her criticisms of the Republican party quite clearly. That's what a political thread is all about.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 21, 2015)

ClassicRockr said:


> Man are things getting *HEATED* up around here! Think I will just stick to my Classic Rock music and leave the politics to you folks.
> 
> Let's see, what drum solo do I want to listen to next.......Chicago's "I'm A Man" or Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida"?



This is why I tried to avoid these macro all you need to know threads because the politics come out fast and furious rather than focusing on the idea or proposal. Then you have pages to read through.

This thread reminds of the Ramones. I keep on thinking about a "brat"- don't say it

What is needed now is a sitar(I think that's what it's called) solo.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> I don't think quicksilver's posts on this thread have insulted any of the other participants. She has made her positive feelings about the President clear and she has explained her criticisms of the Republican party quite clearly. That's what a political thread is all about.



Thank you... I have debated on political forums for years and years..  I know they can be heated.. but I am very careful to NOT personally attack any participant or call them names..   NOW when it comes to their political opinions ... that's a different story.  If someone chooses to take it personally, I cannot help that.  Perhaps they should not get into a political debate then.   Look at the things said directly about me....  I ignore it.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 21, 2015)

I personally did not read any personal attacks by QS.  In any event why don't we just let it go since it seems so hot button?


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 21, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> I don't think quicksilver's posts on this thread have insulted any of the other participants. She has made her positive feelings about the President clear and she has explained her criticisms of the Republican party quite clearly. That's what a political thread is all about.



I agree, in fact, I've seen her walk away from insults made to her, better than I can do sometimes.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 21, 2015)

Some posts on this thread have been removed.  We don't all agree on political issues or candidates, and often give our reasons or opinions on why we oppose one group or the other.  Referring to a political party in a negative way should not be taken personally by any of us. _ Personal _attacks and sniping at each other however, are not welcome here on this forum, please exercise some control, thanks.  https://www.seniorforums.com/showthread.php/7815-Serious-Discussions-in-the-Forums



> Regardless of the topic, we ask that all members are respectful to each other, and keep a civil tone in all discussions in the forums. We do not accept rudeness, name calling, offensive or insulting posts. Keep in mind that this is not a political forum, and any vitriolic arguments or debates are not welcome here. Any offensive posts or political cartoons will be removed.
> 
> Thanks to everyone for helping to keep this a friendly senior forum.


----------



## Josiah (Jan 21, 2015)

I think the thread is about finished, but I don't want this thread to serve as a precedent for stifling future political debates. I would be very unhappy if I felt that I could not express an opinion about an idea (not an SF member) because I knew that someone didn't agree with my opinion.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 21, 2015)

Some interesting perspectives on the SOTU, and particularly the National Debt, have surfaced in this thread.  Insofar as the SOTU, and Obama's proposals are concerned....Only Time will tell, but the general consensus is probably that while they sound good, not much will happen....especially with our "Bought and Paid For" Congress.

As for the National Debt....these charts clearly show how deeply the nation went into debt to finance WWII, and how the government and people pulled together in the ensuing years to pay that debt down.  Back then, is seems that most people cared about their nation, and this led to what was probably this nations best years in the 1960's thru the 1980's.  NOW, everyone is divided, and Partisanship rules, and the needs of the nation seem to come in a distant 2nd.  This Blame Game, and Finger Pointing Partisanship does not bode well for future generations.  Maybe if those on the Extreme Left and Right cease insulting each other, and began to work together, our grandkids won't face such a dismal future.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> I think the thread is about finished, but I don't want this thread to serve as a precedent for stifling future political debates. I would be very unhappy if I felt that I could not express an opinion about an idea (not an SF member) because I knew that someone didn't agree with my opinion.



I feel the same Josiah..  It would be a shame if this subforum was stifled and ruined because of this.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 21, 2015)

Bernie Sanders addresses some republican talking points, and weighs in on the State of the Union Address.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Some interesting perspectives on the SOTU, and particularly the National Debt, have surfaced in this thread.  Insofar as the SOTU, and Obama's proposals are concerned....Only Time will tell, but the general consensus is probably that while they sound good, not much will happen....especially with our "Bought and Paid For" Congress.
> 
> As for the National Debt....these charts clearly show how deeply the nation went into debt to finance WWII, and how the government and people pulled together in the ensuing years to pay that debt down.  Back then, is seems that most people cared about their nation, and this led to what was probably this nations best years in the 1960's thru the 1980's.  NOW, everyone is divided, and Partisanship rules, and the needs of the nation seem to come in a distant 2nd.  This Blame Game, and Finger Pointing Partisanship does not bode well for future generations.  Maybe if those on the Extreme Left and Right cease insulting each other, and began to work together, our grandkids won't face such a dismal future.



BUT.. how did we get out of debt from WWII?   Eisenhower did it by spending!.....  yes.. spending!! He built the interstate highway system.. he built schools and hospitals.. he put people to work and they in turn paid taxes that paid down the debt.... and it had a snowball effect.  The more people working and having money the more the economy grew because there was a demand for goods and services.. THAT created more jobs in other sectors and those people paid taxes and spent money..   That's Demand economics 101.  Austeritiy is NEVER the way to fix an ecconomy..  Look at Europe.  They went the austerity route and now are suffering.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> BUT.. how did we get out of debt from WWII?   Eisenhower did it by spending!.....  yes.. spending!! He built the interstate highway system.. he built schools and hospitals.. he put people to work and they in turn paid taxes that paid down the debt.... and it had a snowball effect.  The more people working and having money the more the economy grew because there was a demand for goods and services.. THAT created more jobs in other sectors and those people paid taxes and spent money..   That's Demand economics 101.  Austeritiy is NEVER the way to fix an ecconomy..  Look at Europe.  They went the austerity route and now are suffering.



That's true...Eisenhower spent Billions to build the Interstates, and put people back to work.  BUT...if you track the history of income tax rates during that time, the rates went as high as 92% on those in the highest brackets.  Eisenhower was smart enough to Spend vast sums of money, while bringing in the necessary revenues to pay for all those expenses...AND pay Down the National Debt, at the same time.  Try that today with our Dumbchit Congress, who doesn't seem to give a rats youknowwhat about the future.  If an individual wants to buy something, they know they will have to pay for it....that principle seems to escape Washington thinking, anymore.  No one likes higher taxes, but if we want a decent nation, and things like road and bridges that aren't ready to collapse, we will have to pay for it.  This Pushing the Bills down the road for future people to deal with is the Most Irresponsible way to govern...IMO.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 21, 2015)

Don M. said:


> That's true...Eisenhower spent Billions to build the Interstates, and put people back to work.  BUT...if you track the history of income tax rates during that time, the rates went as high as 92% on those in the highest brackets.  Eisenhower was smart enough to Spend vast sums of money, while bringing in the necessary revenues to pay for all those expenses...AND pay Down the National Debt, at the same time.  Try that today with our Dumbchit Congress, who doesn't seem to give a rats youknowwhat about the future.  If an individual wants to buy something, they know they will have to pay for it....that principle seems to escape Washington thinking, anymore.  No one likes higher taxes, but if we want a decent nation, and things like road and bridges that aren't ready to collapse, we will have to pay for it.  This Pushing the Bills down the road for future people to deal with is the Most Irresponsible way to govern...IMO.



YES..... I know how high the income taxes were under Eisenhower.. That just goes to prove that taxes do NOT hurt the economy.. Taxes were 72% under Clinton...  Taxes don't hurt the economy because companies kept their profits in their business rather than take them and hide them overseas.  They took a modest amount for the CEOs salaries and bonues  and invested the rest in expansion, research, and hiring new employees... THAT was how companies avoided the high taxes... There was no such thing as the bonuses we see these days.. NOW?  It's all free money!  Pull the profits, and put them in tax havens.. That does nothing to create jobs or stimulate the economy.  This is why "trickle down" is such a joke..  NOthing trickles down..


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 21, 2015)

Here's some information and a couple more charts on personal income and government debt under both republican and democrat leadership...for any who are interested.  I'm still learning things as I read along both on and off the forum. Thanks to everyone here for your input and opinions.  http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/...icans-us-national-debt-graphs-year-president/


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 21, 2015)

Interesting.  Thanks for posting.


----------



## darroll (Jan 21, 2015)

What would Reagan have to say about that graph?


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2015)

Not all the hiding from taxes sent our companies overseas.   When IBM first started the home type computers they cost many thousand dollars for minimum utility.   Then as the competition started to take over and much greater function was being offered there started a basic cost per function pricing war.   We could no longer pay large wages to assemblers and for parts.   So  much of our computer items and builds went overseas to the very low income and wage countries.   The cost started going down and today we have some nice desktops and portables that can do many very complex things nearly instantly and only pay about $1,500 t0 $3,000 dollars for real good machines.   My very first desk top cost nearly $4,000 and it could barely read and post on the screen.   It had something a bit better than high school math capabilities.    Really primitive compared to how our desk tops can work today.

Anyway,  price competition drove our compaies overseas for our electronics devices and I still think that is the way it is today.   Engineered where ever but then built in low income nations like China, Taiwan, Philippines, and so forth.   For the US, some things have changed enough that some items once sent away are now being returned.


----------



## Mike (Jan 21, 2015)

I watched the State-of-the-Union speech live.

Your President is a very charismatic speaker, he had no notes,
nor was there any sign of an auto-cue.

The content of the speech was full of sense and popular things
that the people would like to see happening.

It is therefore in my opinion full of traps for the opposition party,
when they veto all of his proposals, proposals that the public would
really like, then that I think will help the person that his party chooses
to stand to succeed him in office.

Mike.


----------



## BobF (Jan 21, 2015)

Mike said:


> I watched the State-of-the-Union speech live.
> 
> Your President is a very charismatic speaker, he had no notes,
> nor was there any sign of an auto-cue.
> ...



Mike, I was amazed as you about how he can keep talking fast and keep up bringing new ideas and data to the speech.    Then in a few of the camera views the edge of a teleprompter could be seen.    So he did have a good tech type of prompter to keep him going on course and completely solid in his speaking.    Do all folks want the same ideas running?    Not at all, and that is obvious in the ways others have reacted to what he  has done to the US over the years.

Obama has always been a good speaker.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> Mike, I was amazed as you about how he can keep talking fast and keep up bringing new ideas and data to the speech.    Then in a few of the camera views the edge of a teleprompter could be seen.    So he did have a good tech type of prompter to keep him going on course and completely solid in his speaking.    Do all folks want the same ideas running?    Not at all, and that is obvious in the ways others have reacted to what he  has done to the US over the years.
> 
> Obama has always been a good speaker.



I second that Bob, and was glad to read Mike's input.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 22, 2015)

Mike said:


> I watched the State-of-the-Union speech live.
> 
> Your President is a very charismatic speaker, he had no notes,
> nor was there any sign of an auto-cue.
> ...




Very astute of you Mike. President Obama is not stupid...  In the last 6 years the GOP has obstructed most of what he has wanted to accomplish. He knows that now that they temporarialy have the majority in Congress there is little hope of getting these things done.  We all understand that.   Apparently the GOP feels getting a majority was the goal... governing is not.  There will continue to be grid-lock until the Democrats regain the House and Senate.  

That said.. Yes.. the speech was a political speech in preparation for the 2016 election.  It WAS for the middle class..  It was for the benefit of the Democrat who will succeed him and for the Democrats running for the 24 Senate seats up for election in 2016.   It was an outline of his legacy and the things that he feels needs to be done for the American people and the torch those running in 2016 will pick up and run with.


----------



## Mike (Jan 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> Mike,    Do all folks want the same ideas running?    Not at all, and that is obvious in the ways others have reacted to what he  has done to the US over the years.



Bob, I don't really understand the American Election System,
but I assume that the man voted in as President must have
received most votes, so that has to be 50%+ of the people
who voted.

These people voted for him because they like, him, his policies
and his "Get it Done" attitude, this to me means that they are
all of the same party as the other party followers would be voting
for their man too.

Having explained how I see it, I think that these same people will
vote for the next man/woman from his party if they add to their
policies, "I intend to try and finish off what President Obama has
started by adopting some of his ideas".

This new person is speaking to 50%+ of the people who like and
want these changes and surely has a good chance of keeping the
majority.

I will watch with interest how the next Presidential Election unfolds.

Mike.


----------



## BobF (Jan 22, 2015)

Mike, those folks that vote for the  President come from many mind sets.   The liberal left is mostly in the Democrat party and account for about 30% of the votes.   The conservative part of the vote will mostly be in the Republican party and make up about 30% of the vote.   In order for them to get above 50% these two main  parties must also pick up votes from the other 40% of the voters as well.   Also, the President is not elected by the people but by the Electoral College that is determined by the votes in the states where the electors live and help choose the President based on their states election.    I believe it has only been two times in our history when a President was determined by the Electoral College rather than just by the popular vote.    They do have rules for the Electoral College and they must be maintained.    First Electoral College votes are directly tied to the votes.   Then for certain reasons more votes are taken.    I believe one is to avoid needing a public vote to avoid a tie situation.   Somewhat complex and likely not many of us know any more than you do about our Presidents election and selection.s

A big problem with a President is that he is mostly a cheerleader for ideas and then the Congress is supposed to debate the ideas and put them into practice or modify them or refuse them.   Very little this Presidents ideas have gone to Congress and most of the ideas the House of Representatives tried to bring to debate were not accepted by the Senate for review or debate.   So really not much of this Presidents ideas have actually been through our processes and approvals.   That leaves a lot of the current activities open for challenge in the future as the strength of the Congress shifts to conservative control or back to liberal control as the people change their votes.   In the US Republic there is no way for one party to just lock out the other as in the US, even the losers of the election still are supposed to get heard in Congress to help keep our government for all the people, not just for the so called winners of the election.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 22, 2015)

Mike said:


> Bob, I don't really understand the American Election System,
> but I assume that the man voted in as President must have
> received most votes, so that has to be 50%+ of the people
> who voted.
> ...



Again Mike, you are spot on.  President Obama won both elections of 2008 and 2012 with near landslide numbers.. giving him a mandate to deliver the things promised.  Republicans seem to forget that..   Instead they point to a Midterm election where they won Senate seats in Republican States with heavily gerrymandered districts pushing them into a temporary majority.  A Midterm election in which only 37% of registered voters bothered to vote.  NOW we have to keep them at bay for 2 years so they don't destroy the country until we can regain the majority in 2016... with 24 Republican seats to be defended, in States President Obama won in 2012, the 2016 General Election will look quite different from the midterms.  

One thing I blame Democrats for in 2014 is that traditionally they don't vote in the Midterms...  BUT the very rabid, and dwindling Republican Base comes out in droves.  So a "mandate" is hardly present.  AND our political system allows for the minority to keep the majority in check.. which IS or IS NOT a good thing.. depending on which side you come down on politically.   In this case.. our country and the middle class depends on Democrats keeping the GOP majority from doing very much damage.


----------



## BobF (Jan 22, 2015)

Here is a different chart that shows how the taxes get distributed and where most of them go.   The three biggest recievers of the taxes are 'Treasury Dept', 'Department of Defense', and largest being 'Health and Human Services'.    A separate group shown outside the budget is our 'Social Security' effort as it is supported by moneys from the people and the employers rather than by taxes.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

 links >>[SIZE=+3]*The U. S. National Debt Is *[/SIZE]*[SIZE=+4]$18.1 Trillion![/SIZE]*  << links
[SIZE=-1]This is the web site of the National Debt Awareness Center (NDAC).
It is NOT a commercial web site; we don't use cookies, advertising, or java scripts.
This page [/SIZE]  Last updated 01/02/2015 18:41:45 
[SIZE=+1]Read the the *latest budget and tax news*. Just updated.[/SIZE]
  [SIZE=-1][NOTE: Links on this web site with ".gov" suffix, are links to U. S. Federal Government web sites, our primary source of data.][/SIZE]

 

  
 The bar chart comes directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement published by the U. S. Treasury Department. _<---- Click on the chart for more info_.

 The "Debt Total" bar chart is generated from the Treasury Department's "Debt Report" found on the Treasury Direct web site. It has links to search the debt for any given date range, and access to debt *interest* information. It is a direct source to government provided budget information.
  About Tax Code and the IRS.
 --- *"Deficit" vs. "Debt"*---
  Suppose you spend more money this month than your income. This  situation is called a "budget deficit". So you borrow (ie; use your  credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt.  You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you spend more  than your income, another deficit, you must borrow some


----------



## BobF (Jan 22, 2015)

Mike, you have just received two different explanations of Obama's so called wins and his responsibilities.   I gave you the official way our President gets elected, not just an emotional one.   The elected President does not have a mandate to make things happen at all.   He is given a leadership way to operate and our Congress has the assigned job of debating the Presidents ideas and then authorizing them to be done, create budgets and responsibilities for doing so.    Unfortunately our current government has not followed those guidelines so very little has been budgeted and implimented with authority from our Congress.   Today we have a new Congress.   Not likely will they be able to stop what the preceding government and Congress has done.   But for now I believe they will attempt to stop any more cost to next years and after folks to pay.   What will happen after our next election in 2016 is another story completely.    Whether the next President is from the Liberal or Conservative mind set, makes no difference until known how they will act.    A liberal that follows the proper path for our government will be better than what we have today so that remains to be seen.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 22, 2015)

MIKE....  an added thought..  In case you do not know what "Gerrymandering" is..  as I am not sure if this is done in your country but.. according to Wiki..

*



			gerrymandering
		
Click to expand...

*


> is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts. The resulting district apportionment is known as a *gerrymander* (/ˈdʒɛriˌmændər/); however, that word can also refer to the process. When used to allege that a given party is gaining disproportionate power, the term _gerrymandering_ has negative connotations.In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts."



in 2010 after the US census results came out.. Republican majority States set about rearranging Congressional districts to include majorities of people likely to vote Republican.. So the boundaries were redrawn insuring that the majority of House and Senate districts elected Republicans to the House and Senate.  This is how they gained majority status in the Congress as the States up for elections were mostly very Republican States.  Many of the elected Republicans are running in what is considered to be "SAFE" districts.. this simply means that the district has been gerrymandered to insure their victory... no matter what.


----------



## BobF (Jan 22, 2015)

Oh and for sure, the Liberal left has never done such a thing.   Ever.  It happens far too often in all election districts.   By whomever then has the power to do so.


----------



## BobF (Jan 22, 2015)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering



 


 Printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to  the newly drawn Congressional electoral district of South Essex County  drawn by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the  Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over  the Federalists. The caricature satirizes the bizarre shape of a  district in Essex County, Massachusetts  as a dragon-like "monster." Federalist newspaper editors and others at  the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word _gerrymander_ was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry's last name.


 The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the _Boston Gazette_ on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts Congressional election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.[1]
...........................
Democrat-Republican Party sounds like we were once all together.    So why can't we work together these days?    There were such  parties way back and there still are such parties now.    But I don't know if there are any similarities in purpose now.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 22, 2015)

I look at it this way.  One party does it's best to serve the interests of the very wealthy (Republican), the other concerned with middle class, poor and elderly (Democrat).  I am proud to be a member of the latter.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 22, 2015)

Both sides serve the rich everybody needs to get past the pawns and start watching the players.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 22, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I look at it this way.  One party does it's best to serve the interests of the very wealthy (Republican), the other concerned with middle class, poor and elderly (Democrat).  I am proud to be a member of the latter.



I'm an Independent, and honestly, the more I learn about what the republicans have done, are doing and want to do in the future, the more left I lean.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 22, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I look at it this way.  One party does it's best to serve the interests of the very wealthy (Republican), the other concerned with middle class, poor and elderly (Democrat).  I am proud to be a member of the latter.



This is very true... BUT... I'm thinking it's the social issues that get people sucked into voting Republican..  Abortion, guns, gays.... AND this was intentional on the part of the GOP when they invited the Evangelical groups to stand with them and speak for them.  That happened in the 90's I believe.  http://theocracywatch.org/.

However, now it seems that the dog is wagging the tail here, and the old fiscal Republicans of the past.. as well as the Corporatist Republicans are having a very difficutl time controlling the factions they invited in to help get votes..  This is the basis for the fracturing of the party.   Everyone is feeling the pressure to move more and more to the Right and the old school Eisenhower and Nixon Republicans are becoming extinct.  We are quickly headed for a theocracy.


----------



## Mike (Jan 22, 2015)

Thank you one and all for trying to educate me in US Politics.
I think that I get a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel,
but it looks like it takes a big chunk of a lifetime to really get
it.

So why doesn't somebody "Gerrymander" the altered States
back to the Historical Boundaries and have a fairer election?

I can remember the USA overseeing some foreign elections
to ensure that the rules of "Fair Play" were followed, but your
explanations of recent "Shennanigans" in your own elections
do not seem to follow the same rules.

Still I think that the next candidate if they are shrewd enough
and they must be to get in the position to stand, can use all
the information that is available to their own good and to show
the opposition for what it really is, "Power Crazy" comes to mind.

Mike.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 22, 2015)

> So why doesn't somebody "Gerrymander" the altered States
> back to the Historical Boundaries and have a fairer election?



Each US State has it's own legislature consisting of th House and a Senate.. Just like Washington. and Because those states have legislatures that are Republican controlled.. and they wouldn't allow it.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 22, 2015)

The democrats generally use social issues the most ' the repubs just answer the charges. Districts are continually changing their always will be a power struggle. There are no white and black hats here, in most case with voters "The Devil you know is better than the one you don't"
an outline of political mechanics forgets that it's about people. And that doesn't include the folks with either party. It's about money and what makes money. The dems.  and Rep. both stack the deck so the very rich, who have no real political affiliation win. Until you can get to that point.  When in doubt run in circles, scream and shout. As long as the people can get the folks  to believe they change things, the smoke will never move.


----------



## BobF (Jan 22, 2015)

As you say, some states are currently Republican, but then next election they may turn Democrat and back and forth over the years.   It takes lots of changes to try to ensure we have good governments and hopefully no more of these renegade groups like we have had for 6 years and 2 more to go.   Our government is supposed to work through our Congress, not just for a President that has done too much without a Congress discussion.   When he is gone I hope that our next President, whether Liberal or conservative will start operating as they should, through our Congress.    Spending all our taxes and billion's more without our Congress have the chance to study and judge is way wrong to begin with and for some to be so happy with that action is very dismaying.   Our government should be looking our for our future and not just for their re election.

As I pointed out earlier, party is no guarantee of the voters status and convictions.    Democrat party is made up of Liberals, some conservatives, maybe a few uncommitted ones.   Same with the Republicans as they have the conservatives, a few Liberals, some libertarians, very conservatives, and some uncommitted that will vote their way.   Neither the Republican party or the Democrat party have enough folks to actually hold the elections based on their memberships only.   It all depends on how the people voting feel on election day.
.............
Well, it looks like rt3 popped in with his thoughts while I was still typing.    Interesting that it looks like we are on similar paths.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 22, 2015)

One thing we should All keep in mind is that there are NO Poor Politicians.  The vast majority of those in Washington are millionaires...and to think that any of them will vote for anything that reduces their net worth is wishful thinking.  They may "talk" a good story, but when it comes time to propose or vote for legislation, their Greed Always comes into play.

Here is a listing of the 50 wealthiest politicians in Washington...and it is interesting to note that 8 of the top 10 are Democrats.............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth


----------



## rt3 (Jan 22, 2015)

Ah, yes but they are Philosopher Kings! Which makes it right, you know in your heart its right, it's the right thing to do, and the end justifies the means.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 22, 2015)

It matters little to me that congressmen and women are millionaires as long as their votes help me and others survive in a climate where the Republicans are making ever effort to hack into Social security and Medicare.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 22, 2015)

I don't think that because a politician is rich that they will necessarily vote that way.  Look at Kennedy..   I believe being in the Senate pays a salary of $179,000 not chicken feed, but not what Corporate millionaires and billionaires make.  I think it's ideology.. and what they believe is important and just.


----------



## BobF (Jan 22, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> It matters little to me that congressmen and women are millionaires as long as their votes help me and others survive in a climate where the Republicans are making ever effort to hack into Social security and Medicare.



How are the Republicans trying to hack into SS.    That is a worker and employer paid system.   Not a taxpayer place to get riches.   

Medicare might need some meddling.   My medical was once paid by my employer.   Not so since Obama took over.   My employer just backed down to a fixed number and the rest must come from Obama care.   My medication amount was more than before Obama care to start with and this year it has gone up again.   Where is my good from this so called better program?    I see none.   Time for more reviews?   Likely so.


----------



## darroll (Jan 22, 2015)

The democrats talk a pretty good game.

Tax and spend and I don't want their free cheese.
Oh: they still have not discovered that nothing is free.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 22, 2015)

darroll said:


> The democrats talk a pretty good game.
> 
> Tax and spend and I don't want their free cheese.
> Oh: they still have not discovered that nothing is free.



obviously you have not read a word.


----------



## darroll (Jan 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> obviously you have not read a word.


LOL, I went back and read the posts.

The republicans are for the rich.............. Wrong
The democrats love the poor................. Yes they love poor dumb people the best
The republicans are going to take away SS and Medicare.................. That would be political suicide.
I like people that save their money instead of blowing it on vote getting measures.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 22, 2015)

ok darroll..... whatever you say..


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> ok darroll..... whatever you say..



Sounds like someone got their civics education off a cereal box!


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 22, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Sounds like someone got their civics education off a cereal box!



or Fox News


----------

