News Obama's Speech: Dysfunctional Three Ring Circus

[Evo]

I have to agree with what he said tonight, even though he interrupted my cooking show.

Politicians need to stop the showboating and do what is in the best interest of the country.

He's right, it is a dysfunctional three ring circus.

 

[Pengwuino]

What in the world did I miss that would dare interrupt Evos cooking show?

 

[Pattonias]

I at least would prefer a functional three ring circus. It is also more of a two ring circus IMO.

 

[Evo]

What in the world did I miss that would dare interrupt Evos cooking show?

This is highly unusual, since when can the speaker of the House interrupt national TV?

I do not ever remember anyone but the President being able to interrupt for a special announcement.

Now John Boehner is interrupting TV.

The end of the world is truly nigh.

 

[dlgoff]

Are you listing to the GOP response?

edit: Opps. I guess you did.

 

[Evo]

Are you listing to the GOP response?

Unfortunately.

 

[dlgoff]

Unfortunately.

You know what I do when I hear this crap? Head for the fridge for another beer.

 

[MATLABdude]

You know what I do when I hear this crap? Head for the fridge for another beer.

"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!"
-Homer Simpson

 

[Evo]

You know what I do when I hear this crap? Head for the fridge for another beer.

This is the whole problem in a nutshell. "Presidential speech and Republican response"

We are truly a nation divided at the top with no one that cares about the nation itself. They'd rather screw the people until there is nothing left.

They don't care, they're rich, their money is offshore (most likely) and they have the ability to move to another country.

 

[dlgoff]

"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!"
-Homer Simpson

As my microbrewery glass says, "...because without beer, things do not seem to go as well..."

Hey. Maybe the GOP needs to get really drunk. You think that will help?

 

[dlgoff]

This is the whole problem in a nutshell. "Presidential speech and Republican response"

We are truly a nation divided at the top with no one that cares about the nation itself. They'd rather screw the people until there is nothing left.

They don't care, they're rich, their money is offshore (most likely) and they have the ability to move to another country.

Careful Evo. I would hate to see you get banned.

 

[Evo]

Hey. Maybe the GOP needs to get really drunk. You think that will help?

I thought that was the problem.

Really, would it kill these people to actually work together for the greater good?

I know, that's a really stupid question, they aren't in this for the good of the nation, politicians only care for themselves.

I'm so disgusted.

 

[dlgoff]

I think I'll just have another beer and try to forget. Before I say something ...

 

[Evo]

I think I'll just have another beer and try to forget. Before I say something ...

People are free to disagree, I'm just tired of the sandbox level tantrums on both sides.

And I don't even *like* politics.

But they interrupted my cooking show! I was ready for the perfect night.

 

[dlgoff]

People are free to disagree, I'm just tired of the sandbox level tantrums on both sides.

Me too. More beer!

 

[Evo]

Me too. More beer!

More beer!

 

[OmCheeto]

I think I'll just have another beer and try to forget. Before I say something ...

Hi Don!

I'm druckn.

And I agree.

:)

 

[dlgoff]

And I don't even *like* politics.

But they interrupted my cooking show! I was ready for the perfect night.

More beer!

Same here. But now it doesn't matter. I've had a six pack.

 

[dlgoff]

Hi Don!

I'm druckn.

And I agree.

:)

[PLAIN]http://www.wpsot.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Beer-Mug-Toast.jpg

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Despite what the President says, it is obvious to me that Congress will kick the can further down the road and when they do, the President will sign it. The only question left is this: Will it be a beer can? All those in favor say aye.

 

[BobG]

Wow! Obama launched the first denial of service attack against Congress in the history of the US. He urged people to contact their Congress members and Congressional websites are crashing.

And the NFL lockout ended.

 

[Vespa71]

I thought that was the problem.

Really, would it kill these people to actually work together for the greater good?

I know, that's a really stupid question, they aren't in this for the good of the nation, politicians only care for themselves.

I'm so disgusted.

Politicians represent people. In a ratio to how much money they represent. More 12 years single malt.

 

[Evo]

Rofl. Is there anything that enough beer can't solve? At least for the next 6 months.

 

[BobG]

Rofl. Is there anything that enough beer can't solve? At least for the next 6 months.

It solved the NFL lockout. Both sides decided they couldn't afford to go without the money beer companies pay for commercials.

 

[Evo]

Wow! Obama launched the first denial of service attack against Congress in the history of the US. He urged people to contact their Congress members and Congressional websites are crashing.

And the NFL lockout ended.

 

[Proton Soup]

beer is not cost-effective. i think i may go buy a bottle of two-buck chuck, or one of those newfangled wineskins in the cardboard box.

 

[turbo]

I have to agree in principle to every point of Obama's speech (a rarity, since there are few politicians that I can fall in line with). We need to get our financial house in order ASAP, so that we don't end up paying more interest (thanks to a lower bond rating). We also need a solution that doesn't put us right back here a few months down the road.

We can't allow party politics to jerk us around and threaten our economy every few months. Small businesses and young people trying to enter the job market are going to get killed if the GOP wants to keep playing such games for political ends. I don't think the high mucky-mucks of their party care who gets hurt, but I do.

 

[OmCheeto]

[PLAIN]http://www.wpsot.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Beer-Mug-Toast.jpg[/QUOTE]

hic!

[URL]http://www.europa.com/~garry/scienceandbeer.JPG[/URL]

Sorry!

Your glasses, and my glass coincided there for a moment, in a cosmic, ... hic!.

hic



Ok. Time for bed. :zzz:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think the high mucky-mucks of their party care who gets hurt, but I do.

Boehner and Obama could have cut a $4 trillion debt reduction deal. The problem lies with the new tea partiers in Congress. Of course Obama said that. If you want to read the short version of Obama's speech, just read my posts over the last week in the 14th amendment thread.

Boehner can't control his wild pack. So now, because of the tea party, instead of real progress, we will probably get a meaningless kick of the can at best.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Excuse my frustration. I'm from the radical middle.

 

[OmCheeto]

Boehner and Obama could have cut a $4 trillion debt reduction deal. The problem lies with the new tea partiers in Congress. Of course Obama said that. If you want to read the short version of Obama's speech, just read my posts over the last week in the 14th amendment thread.

Boehner can't control his wild pack. So now, because of the tea party, instead of real progress, we will probably get a meaningless kick of the can at best.

I just listened to the speech. It was great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O08VHT6TsRM

It almost looked as if Barry was listening to some of us for the last few years.

Poop! can't find the link to that foolish kid's thread...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just sent off emails to my Congressman and Senators stating that as an Independent voter, I support my President and his offer in the strongest terms, and denounce the no-compromise ideology of the tea party and others on the right who torpedoed our chance for real progress on debt reduction.

I also condemned Democrats who refuse to compromise, in the strongest terms, with a personal touch: ~ I have always voted for you, but I expect you to make compromises and serve the nation, not the party... [or else implied].

 

[Proton Soup]

I just listened to the speech. It was great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O08VHT6TsRM

It almost looked as if Barry was listening to some of us for the last few years.

Poop! can't find the link to that foolish kid's thread...

i haven't listened to it yet. i think i will tomorrow.

but will it make any difference when i do? Obama always gives great oral, but then fails to follow through. i just don't have faith in the man anymore. government is not more open, it's less open. personal liberties continue to take hits with zero moaning from the left since he's not a republican. we didn't get less war, we got more.

so this is a heads up. what difference will a great speech make? do you really think what the man says has anything to do with what he does? i'll need some convincing.

 

[mege]

i haven't listened to it yet. i think i will tomorrow.

but will it make any difference when i do? Obama always gives great oral, but then fails to follow through. i just don't have faith in the man anymore. government is not more open, it's less open. personal liberties continue to take hits with zero moaning from the left since he's not a republican. we didn't get less war, we got more.

so this is a heads up. what difference will a great speech make? do you really think what the man says has anything to do with what he does? i'll need some convincing.

This.

Remember that this is the President whom renewed the tax cuts from 2003, but then now - for political reasons - wants congress to renig on part of them? This is entirely underhanded and gaming the system. Why wasn't the President and the leftist congress worried about how to pay for the increased spending when they were in control? What's different now that makes it OK to tax anyone more (let alone just the high earners)? You can take the boy out of Chicago...

It's also interesting that he's had 5(?) press conferences in 2 weeks regarding the debt-celing issues, but has given less in the previous several months - even with people asking about our country's position in Libya. Pure political gamesmanship - and I don't like it. President Obama is campaigning for 2012 early, that's for sure.

This game of hot potatoe with our country's financials needs to stop, but unfortunately I feel that any plan the President had supported just keeps the music playing.

 

[drankin]

This.

Remember that this is the President whom renewed the tax cuts from 2003, but then now - for political reasons - wants congress to renig on part of them? This is entirely underhanded and gaming the system. Why wasn't the President and the leftist congress worried about how to pay for the increased spending when they were in control? What's different now that makes it OK to tax anyone more (let alone just the high earners)? You can take the boy out of Chicago...

It's also interesting that he's had 5(?) press conferences in 2 weeks regarding the debt-celing issues, but has given less in the previous several months - even with people asking about our country's position in Libya. Pure political gamesmanship - and I don't like it. President Obama is campaigning for 2012 early, that's for sure.

This game of hot potatoe with our country's financials needs to stop, but unfortunately I feel that any plan the President had supported just keeps the music playing.

Sums it for me. It's like everyone is in some dreamland thinking we can live on borrowed money indefinitely. It may take another term for history to to have a perfect example of how to bankrupt a government.

 

[WhoWee]

I found a transcript - with a few comments added (in green) by the poster.
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/07/obama-speech-transcript-7-25-11/

I noted this speech differed greatly from the one then-Senator Obama made when President Bush wanted to raise the limit.

The one component that bothers me about this speech is the description of the effect on interest rates - blaming the Republicans for a downgrading of the US - when the fact is he has presided over Quantitative Easing - the printing of money AND coupled with downward pressure on interest rates.

WHEN (not if) interest rates increase - President Obama appears ready to blame the Republicans. Please label IMO.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Potentially dangerous question but what is the rational behind tax breaks for the rich in the US? I can't figure it out at all

 

[WhoWee]

Potentially dangerous question but what is the rational behind tax breaks for the rich in the US? I can't figure it out at all

That's a valid question. Please consider this - people who don't pay any federal income taxes (nearly 50% of "taxpayers") don't need tax breaks - although they may qualify for a redistribution of tax revenues collected from others.

As for the 50% who do pay federal income taxes - they are the only ones who really need special consideration of deductions - things like depreciation schedules. When President Obama talks about the corporate jet owners enjoying tax breaks - he's talking about the number of years the cost of the asset is accounted for - basically 5 years or 7 years - it's a very minor detail.

 

[Willowz]

Republicans new tactic.

Blame it on Obama!

 

[Willowz]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html"

“In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as usual,” the Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid debate over the U.S. debt. “I’ve got news for Washington - those days are over.”
Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all voted for major drivers of the nation’s debt during the past decade: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the auto industry.

[...]

“Blaming Bush for the structural deficits we’ve known would come since the early 1990s is beyond irresponsible.”

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's a valid question. Please consider this - people who don't pay any federal income taxes (nearly 50% of "taxpayers") don't need tax breaks - although they may qualify for a redistribution of tax revenues collected from others.

Why don't 50% of taxpayers pay federal income tax?

As for the 50% who do pay federal income taxes - they are the only ones who really need special consideration of deductions - things like depreciation schedules. When President Obama talks about the corporate jet owners enjoying tax breaks - he's talking about the number of years the cost of the asset is accounted for - basically 5 years or 7 years - it's a very minor detail.

Complicated subject so what taxes is Obama proposing that Republicans are objecting to?

 

[russ_watters]

Potentially dangerous question but what is the rational behind tax breaks for the rich in the US? I can't figure it out at all

What tax breaks for the rich are you referring to? You're aware that everyone gets tax breaks, right? And as a percentage of an individual's taxes paid, most go to the poor and middle, not the rich.(if you were referring to deductions)

Why don't 50% of taxpayers pay federal income tax?

Tax breaks and direct payments from the government (welfare, food stamps, etc).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What tax breaks for the rich are you referring to?

I probably worded that completely wrong. I don't know a lot about the issue but constantly hear that richer Americans and corporations often end up paying less tax than those poorer than themselves.

 

[drankin]

I probably worded that completely wrong. I don't know a lot about the issue but constantly hear that richer Americans and corporations often end up paying less tax than those poorer than themselves.

Take the media hype with a grain of salt. Less wealthy pay less taxes. As you descend the income ladder the money starts going the other way into the pockets of those who don't work.

 

[Fredrik]

Potentially dangerous question but what is the rational behind tax breaks for the rich in the US? I can't figure it out at all

They believe that it will create jobs, and in general make America a better place to live in, except of course for losers who deserve to suffer anyway, just because they're losers.

The republicans have even stopped using words like "rich" in their speeches. They are now calling rich people "job creators". Seriously.

 

[russ_watters]

I probably worded that completely wrong. I don't know a lot about the issue but constantly hear that richer Americans and corporations often end up paying less tax than those poorer than themselves.

I figured, based on the wording. The left has been pretty successful selling some lies about that. For example, you may have heard about Bush's, "tax cuts for the rich" and not even realized his tax cuts were for everyone and as a percentage of income or taxes paid, actually favored the poor.

 

[Vanadium 50]

II don't know a lot about the issue but constantly hear that richer Americans and corporations often end up paying less tax than those poorer than themselves.

It is certainly possible for a millionaire to have a bad year, and have no income - and therefore pay no income tax.

The federal income tax is very progressive, I posted the breakdown in the past. The top 1% in income pays more than the bottom 95%. One consequence of this is that any income tax cut will predominantly benefit "the rich", as the poorest half wasn't paying it to begin with. It;s already cut as far as it will go for them.

 

[daveb]

I probably worded that completely wrong. I don't know a lot about the issue but constantly hear that richer Americans and corporations often end up paying less tax than those poorer than themselves.

It's not that they necessarily pay less, it's that due to certain tax breaks that can be capitalized upon only be the wealthy, some pay at a lesser rate than those who make less. The real famous instance is when http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html" payed a tax rate of 17.7% on his taxable income as opposed to his secretary who was taxed about 30%. This is what people who want to tax the rich think of.

 

[russ_watters]

Note that that Buffets stat is based primarily on social security, which is capped for the rich and the poor get back more than the rich do percentagewise. It makes a feature that is progressive look regressive.

 

[drankin]

I just have to laugh at the political diversion. Rich people not paying enough taxes is not the problem. Sure gets us poorer folk all riled up though. Irks our sense of justice. But, that isn't the countries problem! We spend too damn much. Squeeze more tax money out of everyone isn't going to fix the problem.