The Real State of the Union - Lets Discuss it

reply to post by mrbarber


The only fascism I see is from the corporations. I can't begin to comprehend your line of thought between the premptive effect of an, officialy, non-existent cause.

Of course, we can quote legislation without reading it, forced to take 'acceptable' insurance where...currently, the proposed legislation doesn't say that, does it? Tell me the paragraph of the bill you're reading, not the blog or the 'news' article you read.

Now it's your turn to bow to your corporate owned media masters.

reply to post by ziggystrange


I genuinely look forward to future discussions of both Hamilton and Burr between you and I, as I think it would be fun, and their fateful duel notwithstanding, in many ways these two men and their disagreements seem to parallel our own. Any understandings you and I can reach of the others point of view will only enhance our future debates and hopefully serve a greater good.

Originally posted by ziggystrange
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Jean Paul,

Thank you!

It was a real pleasure to read your post and not feel any animosity toward you. I mean that in the best of ways. You don't have to agree with me for me to be civil with you.

Like yourself I have strong convictions, and will continue to do my best to explain my positions, and further my cause, which I believe is Pro Liberty, every bit as much as you believe yours to be.

Perhaps in further conversations we can reach a better understanding of each others point of view. I actually became interested in Alexander Hamilton, and Aaron Burr, in the mid 60's, and wound up reading all I could find. Fascinating men, and both Patriots in my opinion. I will enjoy discussing them with you another day.

You are most welcome, and again it was a well appreciated pleasure to read your dissent, as stated.

Which I will not contend at this time.

Ziggy

Kind Sirs.

There surely exists a glimmer of hope.
I for one am taken aback by your mutual display of civility, and candor.
I thought not this exchange possible
To my delight, I was mistaken..

I thank you both, and will star accordingly.

I vigorously applaud you. Gentlemen.


Cyberstray

reply to post by CyberStray


You are kind to acknowledge both of us for our civility, but I must admit my friend, that there was never any doubt in my mind that such civility was the only course to take and that it would happen in its own due time, and whatever our politics may be, they are merely politics and all of us are in this world together, and as such we are brothers and sisters all. Of course, being siblings sometimes means sharp disagreements and harsh words will arise, but our interconnectedness demands we embrace compassion and love and do what we can to better understand the differences between us.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

I genuinely look forward to future discussions of both Hamilton and Burr between you and I, as I think it would be fun, and their fateful duel notwithstanding, in many ways these two men and their disagreements seem to parallel our own. Any understandings you and I can reach of the others point of view will only enhance our future debates and hopefully serve a greater good.

I agree, I look forward to it. They still haunt me. I went to Weehawken to visit the spot, I was scaling the Palisades and had to take the time to feel the place.

Ok another thread some day soon. I'm off topic.

Ziggy

I'd like to believe that his message of cutting the "business-as-usual" crap to Republicans AND Democrats in Congress will get through to regular people, but it probably won't.
People will just say that if Obama wants them to use common sense, that being stupid is correct.

An inspiring speech from one who is finally supported by majority of the people, not just by vote but with money. Rather than to always focus on bitching or tearing down someone, let us create instead of destroying. Focus on the solutions and not the semantics of repudiation.

Economics.

1. Giving tax breaks to the rich had been an error, propergated by the selfish rich, fooled the masses into believing the rich will spend and circulate money. The taxes saved only went either into hoarding or into speculation of bubbles in stocks and shares, NOT creation of jobs. It was right to eradicate it now.

Even if it means the rich will now hire tax lawyers to find ways to evade tax liabilities. It would only mean more lawyer and accountant jobs being created. And with the money rolling back to the govt, it will mean more social spending on education, healthcare and infrastructure improving - creating more jobs responsibily.


2.Creating jobs for americans is a good entreprenuerial drive, along with a $30 billion funding. However, american MNC, mom and pop bosses, and yuppy entreprenuers, must be socially responsible for the funds. It came from the taxpayers, including the poor for every american pay taxes in one form or another.

Hire americans, pay sensible wages and bonuses. Forget about cheap $1 a day illegal immigrants, for it will only hurt fellow citizens. No poor citizen will ever shun any job, no matter how dirty it is. It is only shunned because IT CANNOT EVEN PAY FOR 3 HOTS A DAY, let alone get a roof over ones head.

There is a time for greed, but not all the time. Being lean does not mean depriving a fellow citizen of a decent pay job. Who is the foreign worker anyway? Did he help and contributed to nation building than your fellow citizen? That foriegn worker is only gonna remit the money back home anyway, and not gonna circulate it in the country, after all, he has no roots in the country.

Next, always use one's own resources and never to be dependant on any foriegn imports, for it will be expensive and benefit not one's own country. It may cost more, but with american knowhow and tech, creative marketing, that product created will sell, and with profits, if shared, will circulate and benefit every american.


3.. Taxing american companies overseas is a right thing to do. These companies had benefitted from american support, labour and experience. That they grew was because of fellow americans. That they took wings and flew away, they must then at least contribute something back to their fellow americans who matured such companies.

If such companies do not treat their guest labour in the host country better, and as slaves, then it is the responsibility of the host country govt to protect their resources and workers. Local americans citizens can advise the host countries to stand up for their rights, but often the govt there will seldom listen, so better protect american citizens first and hope migrant US companies practice corporate social responsibility in the host country.


Healthcare.

The issue of healthcare is vital. No one must be denied of healthcare. President Obama knows it. Only thing is, rather than to force americans to take up healthcare insurance, another bill to pay, it would be better to question on why healthcare costs are high. Are taxpayers getting their monies worth or only putting more money into big pharma's greedy pockets?

In thailand, the govt decided to manufacture cheaper and equally effective HIV drugs for their poor based on the blueprints of the big pharma's more expensive similar drugs. It raised a ruckus with Big pharma accusing thailand of repudiating intellectual property rights, justifying their high price on high research costs.

Thing is, the research costs had been funded by charity organisations and govts, and cheap labour produced those drugs in thailand or china, so what research costs are they are alluding to that needs to be pay back? Charity organisations, student researchers, and govt are not asking for money back. So where did the high price for drugs profti went?

Another case of greed and unconscienable rise in healthcare costs by big pharmas. As long as these despicable obscenely greed filled pigs are not taken to task, insurance and healthcare costs will continue to rise.


National Debt.

Yes. No doubt about it, US owes $13 trillion. BUT no one is asking for payback today and secondly, as long as the economy grews and earn revenues, the debt will get smaller each year.

It is not true that each citizen owes hundred of thousands today and will take hundreds of years to pay back. It may be fully eradicated within a decade, as long as americans continue to work and develope the economy, and earn revenue. It's not a problem for americans are not lazy but resiliant, hardworking and intelligent, and is a land of great resource. With proper management and decent spending, the debt will disappear within a decade.

It's a long post. I wish to write more, but I am sure others will wish to have their contributions of solutions as well. Thanks for reading if you got to here.

Americans ain't quitters, had never been and never will be. Good Luck and Cheers!

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Hi Seeker,

Excellent post, not too far from my position.
It is good net down of what was proposed.

Thanks

Ziggy

I have a couble questions
when will the debt stop climbing?
www.usdebtclock.org...

and how big is the real debt?

I pretty much agree with Seeker. I thought there was good and bad about the speech, but overall, I liked it quite a bit and agree with most of what Obama said.

I was thrilled that he called out the Supreme Court for giving the people's rights to corporations! It's about time someone called them out! I hope they were embarrassed and if they approach Obama about it, I'm sure he can handle it.

I think Obama made it clear just what he faced when he came into office.

By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

I think the "freeze" is a bit of a joke, but we'll have to see if it makes a difference.

I've often wondered why he doesn't just give up on getting any buy-in from the Republicans. I didn't know if it was because he was naive or wanted the glory or what, but now I think he's just doing what he thinks is best and he's VERY stubborn about it.

I expected a mediocre speech, but it was really quite good.

Thanks to ziggystrange for the level-headed discussion!


[edit on 28-1-2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

I must say I was rather impressed until the usual bush bashing took flight, I watched all 150 munities of it, but then a small sound bite at the end caught my attention. I’m pretty sure some would see it as an ordinary fallacy but the way it was said alarmed me, I’m sure I could get some one here to pull the sound bite from the video but it was close to the end of the speech. Obama said and I quote "there is only 300,000,00 people in America" I will tell you if I were to meat Obama right now I’d ask him if this would mean that there are only 200,000,000 people distributed amongst the other nations of the world. This is why it shocked me because the last time I was in math class 300,000,000 is under but very close to 500,000,000.

it was the tenth line up from the bottom.

But remember this - I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Samson Bessus]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I pretty much agree with Seeker. I thought there was good and bad about the speech, but overall, I liked it quite a bit and agree with most of what Obama said.

I was thrilled that he called out the Supreme Court for giving the people's rights to corporations! It's about time someone called them out! I hope they were embarrassed and if they approach Obama about it, I'm sure he can handle it.

I think Obama made it clear just what he faced when he came into office.

By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

I think the "freeze" is a bit of a joke, but we'll have to see if it makes a difference.

I've often wondered why he doesn't just give up on getting any buy-in from the Republicans. I didn't know if it was because he was naive or wanted the glory or what, but now I think he's just doing what he thinks is best and he's VERY stubborn about it.

I expected a mediocre speech, but it was really quite good.

Thanks to ziggystrange for the level-headed discussion!

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Hi BH

Thanks! I want to have a substantive discussion based on the Speech. I just read on another thread one poster saying

paraphrase

" I don't waste my time" I didn't see or read it but here is what he said."

Bla bla bla etc

I think there was a lot to think about, and to also track. This wasn't a campaign speech. Obama laid out a plan.

I felt the freeze was pandering to the Reps but if the economy is improving by 2011 we should save as much as possible.

Thanks

Ziggy

[edit on 28-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

Here's your president's first misrepresentation/misdirection:

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

This assumes that the “shored up banks” caused “this crisis.”
That is argument from fallacy.

The “crisis” was the failure of mortgage loans improvidently issued under federal guidance from FNMA, FNMC, FHA and HUD.

Had federal standards not been lowered for residential and commercial mortgage loan qualification, there would never have been a rush to refinance or rush to buy. The secondary market for mortgages depended 100% upon the “standards” of federal regulators and guarantors.

“Non-conforming” loans had theretofore always been seen as extremely risky. With federal support, they became “investments.”

Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, FHA, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank bear most responsibility in these regards. These programs spanned Democrat and Republican administrations, and Democrat and Republican Congresses.

Without federal backing, none of the “investments” of the “shored up banks” would ever have been possible.

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Hi Jdub,

Thank you for your opinion about the President of the United States.
It is most welcome.

Ziggy Strange

I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable.

Everyone who criticizes Bush for TARP needs to acknowledge the first sentence!

Sadly, Obama and the Democrat Congress have done their best to prevent transparency and accountability.

When Obama determined that AIG was in need of MORE government support, he and Chris Dodd insisted that they be able to pay inflated and unjustifiable bonuses.

Then Obama denies he did so. Then Dodd denies he did so.
Then the record establishes that Dodd DID SO! Then the record establishes that Obama’s Treasury DID SO! Then Dodd says, “Obama did it.”

Then, America forgets.

All this ignores the Federal Reserve’s intervention into Treasury auctions, diversion of cash to primary traders to support the stocks of “rescued” banks and insurance companies; and refusal to reveal the scheme.

Of course, when all the TARP-funded banks repay their obligations, plus interest, Obama claims they got a free ride and should pay “fees” to compensate the treasury. Yet, he refuses to require “fees” from the deadbeat TARP beneficiaries such as GM, Chrysler, UAW, SEIU, and AFL-CIO, who’ve reaped billions in taxpayer funding and have paid NOTHING back to the Treasury.

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by ziggystrange

We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

Is this the same person who complained about Bush’s Tax cuts? Where’s the additional off-setting revenue?

Isn't this the same person who agreed to EXTEND the Bush tax cuts?

Is this also the same person who acknowledged that drastically INCREASED energy and insurance taxes were vital to his “reforms?” Who exempted favored supporters from these taxes? Whose policies and orders INCREASED the costs of “gas, and food, and other necessities?”

Anybody wonder what good lower taxes matter if you spend all of the “savings” on increased costs? What good did “first time home buyers” receive when their ranks DROPPED by unprecedented numbers?

As for “haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime,” doesn’t that betray his philosophy of hiding taxes by increasing costs to others? What about the uber-rich? Why haven’t they been “taxed” as promised?

“All of which helped businesses keep more workers.” That is just outright denial and obfuscation. Who here wants to argue that “businesses” have “kept more workers?"

Deny Ignorance.

jw

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. ... Tens of thousands are teachers, cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

Aside from the phony congressional districts, made-up zip codes, and completely imaginary numbers, every critical review has proven these claims insupportable, if not outright fraudulent.

The non-partisan CBO says that these numbers are “impossible to prove.”

Even assuming the claims are true, ask yourself who benefited. These are government jobs, awarded to public employers! Guess which "governments" got the most $$.

Can anyone spell NEA, AFSCME? Do you really believe we’d be short 2,000,000 “cops, firefighters, first-responders and teachers” is the taxpayers hadn’t kicked-in $787billion?

Deny ignorance.

jw

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China's not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany's not waiting. India's not waiting.

China: increased private investment and entrepreneurship; decreased "state-run" enterprises.

Germany: increased private investment and entrepreneurship; decreased "state-run" enterprises.

India: increased private investment and entrepreneurship; decreased "state-run" enterprises.

USA: Government ownership of insurance (AIG), manufacturing (GM, Chrysler), lending and banking (GMAC, Bank of America, CitiGroup. Penalizing investors (those earning $250,000+, CO2 'emitters'). Rewarding the politically connected and contributors (SEIU, UAW, AFSCME). Increased taxes on employers (Obamacare).

So, what are we waiting for?

jw

Originally posted by Samson Bessus
Obama said and I quote "there is only 300,000,00 people in America"

Can you explain your issue with this? I didn't understand what you found questionable about it.

I find it moderately entertaining that there was nothing mentioned about marijuana legalization. the most entertaining moment of the speech was looking at the questions people were asking in the "post your questions for president Obama to answer next week" box on the youtube stream, and seeing questions about marijuana legalization every other question. they also had the most votes.

but no, let us legalize universal health care and push modern medicine and pharmaceuticals on people, as opposed to a plant which could in fact alleviate about 80% of prescribed drugs on the market. but wait people can grow that in their homes and backyards. that wouldn't be profitable. let's not talk about it.

another note: what about the American diet. people are sicker than ever because of the quality of the food. Instead of universal health care, the government should offer organic raw green vegetables fruits, and meats to anyone receiving food stamps. Instead of universal health care, stop subsidizing genetically modified corn, and start subsidizing organically grown fruits and vegetables.

Whether or not you support a primal diet, it does in fact alleviate most if not all chronic conditions. how's that for a health care plan.

anyways, those were the main thoughts I had during this speech. I was mainly amused by how the two parties are supposed to be opposed to each other, but are never opposed to each other on any issues that the big corporations and bankers don't want. Thus it does not get mentioned or have any time given to it by either party. Both parties are just kneeling down to their corporate, wealthy financiers