Galatia Forums

So . . .
What did you think of the State of the Union Address? My thoughts:
That's a lot of times to say the words "Tax Cut".
A high-speed train to move goods, services, and information; I thought trains moved people?
I do not understand the assumption how clean energy equals jobs, don't dirty industries loose jobs?
Yes, Nuclear power, will you be my boyfriend Obama?
What's with the wife shout out in the State of the Union . . . we already like you.
Why is Congress cheering that Obama is going to trump them and pass an Executive Order to replace a bill they failed to pass. I can't decide are they all just idoits or assholes.
Is anyone else uncomfortable with the phrasing, the banks "helped us into a crisis"? What? I pretty sure they were the ONLY cause for thier crisis. Oh, and its not over when they pay the Gov't back, I'd like my 401K back please!
Find the guy that laughed at the common sense comment, and flog him to death.
I love the balls to call out the Supreme Court. I've said it before, but the braches of Gov't work best when they are not bedfellows. Sorry Supreme Court no crackers in bed.
I wished he had leaned on the Dems more, I think he swallowed his words a bit. They were really the only ones he pronounsed poorly thoughout the entire speech. Technically, the Dems don't need the GOP, so he should be calling them out to do something/anything...at all, please.
I dislike the idea of hate crimes. All a hate crime is a crime perpurtated by an ignorant person.
I like that he discusses cynicism and disappointment, I like that he is basically saying it is time for a "Change" in personnel.
I think the ending missed. I thought he had some good points in the speech, but the ending didn't harken back to anyoth them. I was like, "OK, now we will talk about the plan for Haiti . . . It's over?

Over all I thought it was a good speech. I'm starting to like Obama-man. If you have not seen the video of him addressing the GOP caucus the next day, its a must watch/listen. He takes Q and A, and just crushes them.

I thought it was a very good address. And yes, the one he had with the republicans the next day was quite nice to listen too. He also had one with the democrats yesterday, and that was worth listening to as well.

As for the actual speech:
- He did talk a lot about tax cuts, but that's what everybody who opposes him has been asking for. So now he's giving them that. That should mean that the republicans will work with the democrats to get some of these tax cuts passed. Here I will diverge for a second and rant:

---------RANT------------
I've been more of a centrist than anything, and have been able to see the points of both sides. For example, I am well aware of the points both republicans and dems were making for and against the heath care bill. And they both have good points and I as much as I wanted something to get passed, so something gets changed, i could not fault republicans too much for trying to block this particular huge health care bill.

But recently, what i'm noticing is that the esteemed republicans have been blocking anything and everthing for no good reason except that it's good politics for them (not sure how). They really HAVE become the party of NO, and that pisses me off to no end!!

Why do I say this? Because they have voted against bills that they (the republicans) have sponsored! Why would you ever vote against a bill that you have sponsored (the sponsors themselves voted against it)? Moreover, they are blocking appointment of members to Obama's cabinet when they have no reason why they should not vote them in. For example, the GSA Administrator position (building management), Obama nominated this lady a number of months ago. The republicans would not vote her in, yet they could not provide even one reason that she is not qualified to be in that position. She hasn't cheated on her taxes, she hasn't done anything bad, so why would you stop this? The only reason that comes to mind is because they oppose everything Obama does. Obama put is best when he said to stop the "You lose, I win" strategy. But i digress..
-------END RANT---------

- I am happy about the Nuclear power. I think that's a good idea. And i hope that it will be passed since both parties want it. I think clean energy is also a good investment. As you say Jeff, it may take jobs away from the dirty energy, but that's not why we should invest in it. It's not the jobs, but the fact that it's brand new. In the past, our country was #1 because we had the most technologically advanced stuff. We came up with it. We researched it and invented it. That put us at the top. This is an unexplored field that if we can make some good shit out of, it can give us an edge. Besides, it will also make us feel better about ourselves for 'saving' the environment. Another good reason to do it though is because it helps us get away from importing oil from wherever. The more we can sustain ourselves, the less barganing chips our providers have (and I am thinking Middle East since it's such a volatile region).
- I like that he's trying to give credits to small businesses that hire (though I'd much rather have him all together lower the tax instead of giving a credit but that's fine).
- I like that he wants to eliminate capital gains tax for business investments, and give more credits to businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.
- I love that he wants to invest in education. That is the single most effecting way to get our population beyond the level of the rest of the world. An educated population will drive every aspect of our economy up. There's no question about that. I love it, I love it, I love it! Our 7th graders NEED to again be able to read!!!!! Am I being too harsh? Also love that he wants charter schools as well. Some people would just excell in a charter school and we need to provide that option. They are a very good option.
*edit* I would also love to see some emphasis on trade schools. This way there are alternatives to highschool and higher learning. This way someone who would normally be a highschool dropout and end up working at McDonalds can instead join a trade school and come out with a proffession (e.g a carpenter, mechanic or what have you). Afterall, many give the excuse that they dropped out because they needed to work or because they simply found the classes uninteresting. Why not teach them how to work then in a field that they are interested in?

-I'm torn about the healthcare bill and him wanting to push it again. Indeed, something must be done. If we do nothing (which is what we're currently doing), the healthcare will backrupt us. There is no question about it. So something must be done. But I think he probably went overboard with that huge huge overhaul. I do hope they push something through though. I don't know what will happen with this, but if they don't do something, I'm not voting for either dems or republicans the next time around (someone once told me that they are the party of stupid and the party of evil, but they didn't tell me which one is which..)

There are a couple of points that I don't agree with him:

-First, I don't think he should tax the banks. They will simply pass the burden down to the consumers and won't increase their lending. Then again, i see his point that since the banks are not lending to small business currently anyway, making them pay the tax won't change the status quo since they are already not lending. So at least we get the money back that we spent on them. (I agree with you Jeff that they were the major cause of this crisis)

- Second I don't agree with him wanting to lift the "don't ask, don't tell" policy from the army. The army is a completely different animal then civilian life. They have different rules, different laws, different customs, different traditions and different regulations that restrict military personall from doing stuff that a civilian would have no problem to (eg. as basic as drinking alcohol). Particularly when deployed, military personnel must work in very spartan conditions, with little or no privacy expectations. Knowing that Joe who showers next to you is gay and checking you out everytime you shower may very well put a huge stress on you. If you indeed allow gays to now be openly gay in the military, then you WILL HAVE to create the infrastructure to support them (need money). Just like how it's currently done with females in the army. They have their own showers and sleep in their own baracks. Now you'll need to do the same for gays and lesbians. You simply can't expect people to be understanding and comfortable sleeping/showeing/pooping next to a guy that you know checks you out every day and loves to watch you bathe (oh and he thinks your hairly legs are very manly).

The analogy I would draw is how uncomfortable women feel when they are exposed and guys stare at them and check them out. There is no difference between the two.

Furthermore, the policy works! Why change something that works? It's worked for many years. This sounds more a political move then anything else..


Closing points, first, this response is for you jeff since i know no one else has the patience to read this much.

Last, I think he's one of our best speaker since..well, I really don't remember a better speaker for president. He was very logical and he had a very good speech that I think did him and his party a lot of good.

Good Day, All.

Untrue I read all of your rants, that way I get both sides. I just don't have the time at work to respone and have now computer at home (which I like).

Sincerely

Thomas

i dont see hoe its the republicans who are blocking him when they have not even enough votes to filibuster, if hes being blocked its by members of his own party, until the 2 newly elected rep. take office they are inconsequential. he only blames them so as to have a scape goat for his own incompetence to lead. lets be honest 2 years as a senator and 15 as a community organizer does not prepare one for this level of responsibility and leadership . the whole speech was a blame everyone else for your problems which i think is what the dems excel at and of course it sounds good as it assuages every one from personal responsibility.
on the tax cut issue....does anyone here know anyone who owns a small business? I do, and he has absolutely NOT cut taxes on them. it was a bold face LIE! sure he cut some taxes like $300/ employee but raised pay roll taxes by $5000/ per employee who earns over $6000/year how is that a cut? if you dont believe me i can give you the # to 2 small business owners i know and you ca hear it first hand.
i refuse to believe in man made global warming or that its even killing us. mars has warmed an equal % to earth and in the last 100 years(are we responsible for that too?) and people used to grow wine grapes in Scandinavia 1200 years ago and cant now cause its TOO COLD!

nothing personal i just aint gona drink the cool-aid.

if you need to hear it from a black man ................http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWRPB1lPXJg

Umm, no I didn't need to hear it from a black man. I don't like the implication. Now a midget in a mermaid costume, that would be something new.

I think Serban and I generally agreed with your points, except I felt Obama was somewhat self-effacing in the speech. Now one might argue that he was backhandedly apologizing for being nieve, but I wonder if his lack of experience also means that he lacks the jadedness that comes with time and the skeletons that other politicans fill thier closets with. Don't know, only time will tell.

Speaking of time, we have to be careful when comparing events in the past to more modern ones. Past events are not always causal, to future ones. Also, America subscribes to a policy of measured response; so when enemies blow up a navy boat or shoot down a fighter or destroy an embassy, we don't go after their leaders . . . we blow up one of their jeeps or knock over a radio tower, not very "news" worthy. This is thought to not escalate violence . . . I can't say I agree with the policy in total, but it does avoid forien entanglements. Clinton appears to do nothing, because the joint chief advised that we respond with a measured response.

Serban, I plan to watch the Dem one tomorrow. I read about a third of the transcript, sounded like the SotU all over again, with a couple more jabs at the GOP.

I mostsly agree with your points yes, except for the one below:

on the tax cut issue....does anyone here know anyone who owns a small business? I do, and he has absolutely NOT cut taxes on them. it was a bold face LIE! sure he cut some taxes like $300/ employee but raised pay roll taxes by $5000/ per employee who earns over $6000/year how is that a cut? if you dont believe me i can give you the # to 2 small business owners i know and you ca hear it first hand.

He did in fact pass over 25 different tax cuts in the recovery bill (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ts-last-y/).

Also, I googled and googled, and I could not find even one article talking about a tax increase that he has passed in 2009 (while he was president). Therefore, I must assume that any tax increases that your friend doesn't like must have been already in place when he became president. As such, no blame can be attributed to Obama. If you find otherwise, please post an article or something to debunk my claim (and please don't post about future potential taxes. That's not what we're debating here).

Also, I would caution against your friends math. A 5000$ tax increase on a $6000/year salary means the dude made $1000 that year. That absolutely makes no sense. If your friend meant a 5000$ increase on a 60000 salary, that comes up to a 8.3% tax increase which also doesn't add up. When taxes raise by 1% people make huge deals out of it, you would think an 8% would see heads rolling. I don't believe your friend's claims. I would ask for proof.

Having said that, I do wish to see taxes lowered on businesses. In fact i want to see across the board tax decreases for everyone. Of course, that comes with its own set of problems (such as where will the money be cut from to make up for the decrease in tax revenues, since there is no free lunch). But this is for another post and another day.

the payroll tax is on unemployment insurance and was passed by the state of Md , why? Obama passed unemployment extensions across the board, for states to pay for it they had no choice but to increase the tax on unemployment insurance or bankrupt the system, so did he raise it personally? no. but he did put in legislation forcing a raise that was inevitable. i will find the other increases and get back to you but here is just 1!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... Stories%29

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTV4nAtu2eM this is a good one!

ahrimen wrote:the payroll tax is on unemployment insurance and was passed by the state of Md , why? Obama passed unemployment extensions across the board, for states to pay for it they had no choice but to increase the tax on unemployment insurance or bankrupt the system, so did he raise it personally? no. but he did put in legislation forcing a raise that was inevitable. i will find the other increases and get back to you but here is just 1!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... Stories%29

Ok, I can see your argument that because the unemployement was expanded, it caused states to have to pay unemployement for the additional weeks and that drained their resources, so they decided to increasing their taxes to make up for it. This extention I believe is expiring on Feb 28.

However, if blame must be passed, I would caution against solely blaming Obama for this because there were 3 unemployement extensions passed by congress. First one was passed in November 2008, 2nd one in June 2009 and one at the end of 2009 which extends it until Feb 28. As you might now notice, the November 2008 extension was done at the behest of president Bush. So if you indeed wish to blame the white house for the MD tax increase, then it is only fair that you blame both the democrats and the republicans. Agreed?

You mention this is only one of the tax increases. What other tax increases are there?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2271.cfm (its not a pay roll tax but remember people who make 200k probably own a small business)
and no i disagree cause the extension passed by bush (with a large dem congress,and the bill was sponsored by pelosi) was for a 2 month extension, Obama's is up to 18 months in some cases and sure some republicans voted for it cause the media hammered the ones who did not, and no one wants to be labeled not compassionate. my advice to you is find a small business owner and ask him/ her Steve from craters and freighters or Frank from aerostar machine i will ask them if you can contact them to hear it from the people who will have to lay people off ( i was in Steves office when he was on the phone with his congressman asking how he was suppose to stay in business) ...................................just cause someone didnt write and article about it doesnt mean it didnt happen. (i took a shit today but you aint gona read about it in the baltimore sun) and no pres. in history has ever been more loved by network news.

That tax hasn't happened yet (it's not a new tax, it's tax cuts that expire in 2011 and thus return to the 2001 levels). Will that actualy happen? Maybe, maybe not. I know there's a push to make these tax cuts permanent. We shall have to wait and see..

I think this post is starting to turn into war of words. Obviously, you think that Obama is at fault for our current problems while I think he is not. You think he's done a bad job thus far while I think he's done a good job thus far. Those views are divergent and neither of us will cave in to the arguments of the other. I think we will just have to agree to disagree at this point. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T32OymFFQLw :D

:D

I still like their bloodlines song best. It has such clear guitar and I love the way they play their drums. It's neat! I wouldn't mind seeing them live.