Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 10:38 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

It is really no big surprise that you found the President's SOTU address boring, some so called Christians were even driven to using abbreviations for curse words.

His Sputnik moment may have fallen flat for some of you, but his use of the word was relevant for his overall point.























We'll it's a surprise to me.

I wasn't bored. My interest was kept throughout the speech by the slim possibility that he might say something that suggested he truly has realigned his viewpoint to a more central position.

The use of Sputnik was intended to invoke the spirit of the country during the "space race." It failed.

People need jobs now; not after 10 years or so of "investment" in green energy bear fruit ( That is if they ever do)

The national anxiety of the time of Sputnik was not unemployment and the economy, it was the perceived existential threat of a nuclear Soviet Union controlling space.

Obama and/or his speech writers, for some reason, thought that he could generate a sense of patriotic competition with China and India through the vehicle of "green energy."

I doubt it registered as more than a blip on the American psyche, and a blip that has already faded to nothing.

Obama's rhetoric is capable of whipping up resentment or encouraging smug sanctimony, but he comes up short on united will.

In the end, it was simply a restatement of his liberal policies, without the blatant call outs of Republicans and the Supreme Court we heard last year.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 10:41 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
"People need jobs now"


and how was he supposed to make that happen?

what is the formula that the conservatives have for creating instant jobs...?

besides cutting taxes on the wealthy.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 10:41 am
@revelette,
BTW...what the hell did you mean with the Christian comment?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 10:46 am
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

"People need jobs now"


and how was he supposed to make that happen?

what is the formula that the conservatives have for creating instant jobs...?

besides cutting taxes on the wealthy.


This is a great point. They oppose each and everything the government could do to create jobs, but complain that more isn't done about job creation.

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 11:07 am
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

"People need jobs now"


and how was he supposed to make that happen?

what is the formula that the conservatives have for creating instant jobs...?

besides cutting taxes on the wealthy.


Not by investing in green energy and education.

Hell, he wants to run this country for another 6 years. He needs to figure out how he gives the people what they want or convince them they can't have them.

If he doesn't he'll lose the job in 2012.

I know that some Democrats have convinced themselves that the 2010 election
results were positive because now the Republicans have to produce outcomes their party and president have found impossible, but that's wishful thinking.

The House will continue to pass bills which they will claim can achieve the desired outcomes. If the Senate or President consistently blocks them, Americans will not fault the GOP. Probably the biggest concern the Republicans have is that Obama will imitate Clinton and take credit for their policies.

Rockhead
 
  1  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 11:10 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
so, no ideas.

just definitely not his...

politics as usual.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 11:19 am
@Rockhead,
So in the new political world for which you crave, I am required to propose alternative ideas when I find fault in the ones advanced by the people paid to run the government?

I'll keep that in mind when reading your future posts.

I have confidence that conservatives in the House will present specific ideas with which I can agree or disagree.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 11:21 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
you're a Joe Wilson fan, no doubt.

brilliant minds in abundance...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 11:23 am
@Cycloptichorn,
It's worse than that! The GOP tellS the American people they want to cut taxes and create jobs, but never explain how they're going to accomplish that. Simple minds can't comprehend simple ideas. They continue to contradict their own agenda by refusing to approve legislation in support of small business in this country - just to show the American people that Obama is a failed presidency.

WAKE UP, AMERICA!
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 11:27 am
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:


brilliant minds in abundance...


And yet still we entertain your musings.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 11:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

So in the new political world for which you crave, I am required to propose alternative ideas when I find fault in the ones advanced by the people paid to run the government?


What's new about that, exactly? This has long been a central feature of politics.

Not only that, but the 'fault' you find is specious and without evidence, or in many cases, even basic logic. As evidenced by your claim that investing money in industries doesn't create jobs in those industries.

Quote:
I'll keep that in mind when reading your future posts.

I have confidence that conservatives in the House will present specific ideas with which I can agree or disagree.


I'm confident that those ideas will be nothing more than thin veneers for tax cuts for the rich. That's the only thing elected Republicans care about.

Also,

Quote:
Not by investing in green energy and education.


So, investing money in industries doesn't create jobs there? You might want to switch to a career in economics!

Cycloptichorn
Rockhead
 
  4  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 11:29 am
@Cycloptichorn,
the party of No...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 12:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
What's new about that, exactly? This has long been a central feature of politics.


But I'm not a politician

Quote:
Not only that, but the 'fault' you find is specious and without evidence, or in many cases, even basic logic. As evidenced by your claim that investing money in industries doesn't create jobs in those industries.


You've misrepresented my position. The investments will not create enough jobs to satisfy the public in the short term.

Do you believe investments in green energy and education will create enough jobs to lower the unemployment rate to something close to 7.5% by year end?

Quote:
I'm confident that those ideas will be nothing more than thin veneers for tax cuts for the rich. That's the only thing elected Republicans care about.


I'm sure you are.

Quote:
So, investing money in industries doesn't create jobs there? You might want to switch to a career in economics!


You're repeating yourself.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 12:18 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

You've misrepresented my position. The investments will not create enough jobs to satisfy the public in the short term.

Do you believe investments in green energy and education will create enough jobs to lower the unemployment rate to something close to 7.5% by year end?


No, because that's a ridiculous statement to make. It is an appeal to extremes. It either betrays a lack of seriousness on this issue on your part or a lack of understanding of what employment figures are or mean.

Nothing we can do would reduce unemployment to that rate in 11 months. So this is what I would call a false or logic-free criticism on your part. Not a meaningful one.

When Rockhead asked 'what's the Conservative formula for creating instant jobs?,' you had no answer. At all. Not even a shadow of one. Instead, you attacked Obama and the left's position. This is exactly what Rock and I are talking about.

Quote:
You're repeating yourself.


Pointing out idiotic comments bears repeating.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 12:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I think the issue is that governments and the political processes that guide them don't generally lead to wise investments or those that really stimulate new economic activity beyond the investment itself.

A good example is the billions being directed towards high speed rail by Obama & his administration. Do you really believe that a 15 year project that might one day enable rail passengers to reduce the travel time from san Francisco to LA by about two hours will improve our competitive position with resport to the international market ?
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 12:45 pm
Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Maximum income tax rates were decreased by a factor of 0.5 from the 70% they were in 1981 to the 35% they have been 2003 to 2010.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Federal Receipts during the period 1980 - 2010 increased by nearly a factor of 5.7 from $0.517 to $2.931 trillion.

Federal Outlays during the period 1980 - 2010 increased more than a factor of 5.2 from $0.591 to $3.091 trillion.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Civilian Non-institutional Population during the period 1980 - 2007 increased more than a factor of 1.41 from 168 to 238 million.

Total US Civil Employment during the period 1980 - 2007 increased more than a factor of 1.47 from 99.3 to 146 million.

Total US Civil Employment during the period 2007 - 2010 decreased by more than a factor of 0.95 from 146 to 139 million.


0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 12:49 pm
@georgeob1,
Why not? It happens in Japan and Europe.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 12:49 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I think the issue is that governments and the political processes that guide them don't generally lead to wise investments or those that really stimulate new economic activity beyond the investment itself.


There are more than a few economists who disagree with that. And several historical examples that don't match up. But, what is their evidence worth in the face of your cynicism? You'll just deny whatever evidence is presented, because you're not really interested in a thoughtful discussion on what is a core ideological issue. Right?

Quote:
A good example is the billions being directed towards high speed rail by Obama & his administration. Do you really believe that a 15 year project that might one day enable rail passengers to reduce the travel time from san Francisco to LA by about two hours will improve our competitive position with resport to the international market ?


Sure, though I don't know why every single thing has to be in terms of 'competitiveness with the international market.' If you mean, will our infrastructure start to match that of other countries, you are exactly correct... we are behind in this area.

Not only that, it's a service I would use on a regular basis. Right now I have to fly or drive to LA when I visit and it takes longer than 2 hours to get there. Significantly longer.

I enjoy riding the train as it is and I would like to do more of it. It isn't a crazy or unproven technology at all - it works just fine. It's a good solution for the future need of our citizens to get from one city to another without having to add one more car to the already overloaded roads.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 12:55 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

A good example is the billions being directed towards high speed rail by Obama & his administration. Do you really believe that a 15 year project that might one day enable rail passengers to reduce the travel time from san Francisco to LA by about two hours will improve our competitive position with resport to the international market ?


Sure, though I don't know why every single thing has to be in terms of 'competitiveness with the international market.' If you mean, will our infrastructure start to match that of other countries, you are exactly correct... we are behind in this area.

Cycloptichorn

The point here is that the President in his SOU speech described this spending as "investments" that would improve our productivity and competitive position in international trade and manufacturing - something that would stimulate job creation beyond the specific elements of the projects themselves. The fact is that the specific spending measures the administration is pursuing don't come close to meeting that standard. Obama is merely misleading the public in a vapid and probably cynical rationalization of the same old spending patterns.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Thu 27 Jan, 2011 01:00 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

A good example is the billions being directed towards high speed rail by Obama & his administration. Do you really believe that a 15 year project that might one day enable rail passengers to reduce the travel time from san Francisco to LA by about two hours will improve our competitive position with resport to the international market ?


Sure, though I don't know why every single thing has to be in terms of 'competitiveness with the international market.' If you mean, will our infrastructure start to match that of other countries, you are exactly correct... we are behind in this area.

Cycloptichorn

The point here is that the President in his SOU speech described this spending as "investments" that would improve our productivity and competitive position in international trade and manufacturing - something that would stimulate job creation beyond the specific elements of the projects themselves.


Yes - infrastructure investments. There is no doubt whatsoever that such investments contribute to economic activity in the future.

However, regarding 'improve our productivity and competitive position in international trade and manufacturing' - did Obama say that in his SOTU speech? Are you sure? I watched it and I don't recall him using that phrase.

Quote:
The fact is that the specific spending measures the administration is pursuing don't come close to meeting that standard. Obama is merely misleading the public in a vapid and probably cynical rationalization of the same old spending patterns.


That's because you just made that standard up.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1925
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 07:37:55