I found the speech very meh.
The tone was great! Rather than a "Problems with America" speech, President Obama gave an "American Exceptionalism" speech. Very Regan/Bushesque for the first 20 minutes. There was a real push for compromise and cooperation.
As for the meat, there was none. The primary issues that Americans care about are the deficit and jobs.
President Obama addressed the deficit issue by proposing a freeze on domestic spending. Well we are already spending well over deficit levels, and a freeze will bankrupt us. Without strong spending cuts we cannot maintain this pace. In almost the very next breath he began to detail new "investments" A.K.A. spending. So we got some elegant nonsense to address the deficit issue.
For over 20 months unemployment has been well over 9%. President Obama cited jobs only 13 times in this speech talking mostly about private sector innovation and competition with other countries. He also mentioned his new clean energy objectives as the primary engine for new jobs. All of this is stuff we already know and have heard. Great long term goals, but no meat. He paid lip-service to simplifying the tax code, but was very clear only to cite simplifying the "individual tax code."
Not much of a speech really. He did not use the time effectively to address the issues that caused his party to lose the house. The tone was pleasant though. He is a talented speaker.
Did anyone pick up on anything special?
Gosh, YOU didn't find any meat? YOU didn't think he addressed in detail the problems of our country and their solutions?
Very surprising. Quick, use your it's EASY button and enlighten us. You're usually so helpful in that way.
I'll start for you:
IT's EASY, just......
Quote from: Gaspar on January 26, 2011, 07:54:07 AM
I found the speech very meh.
Of course you did. He could've announced a cure for cancer and you'd say it was meh.
9.4% unemployment. Virtually no change.
14 Trillion in debt (up from 9 Trillion)
1.3 Trillion in Deficit (up from about 200 billion) increased by a factor of 7 since he took office.
Unemployment and debt are the only issues he had to address. The only issues I was interested in hearing about, so yes I suppose I found no meat.
My question is, what meat did you find?
Quote from: Gaspar on January 26, 2011, 09:55:09 AM
My question is, what meat did you find?
The same that can be said over and over. I was impressed with the end.
Quote"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."
"Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation."
The resounding sound of crickets put an emphasis on it.
I found there might be a path that leads to meat if my fellow meat lovers will pull the meat wagon together!
Seriously, would you have sat through a nuts and bolts discussion of these issues? A leader's role is to shine a light on the path not pull the wagon.
Oh, wait...I see you are able to answer your own questions. Carry on.
"Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the moon. The science wasn't even there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets . . . we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation's Sputnik moment."
"At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It's whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It's whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but a light to the world. We are poised for progress."
"The world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn't discourage us. It should challenge us."
"We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled."
"We will move forward together, or not at all — for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics."
I thought his speech was brilliant.
This is a FB post from a friend of mine who sounds alot like Gaspar.
She wrote "blah, blah, blah, hippity hoopla....that's all I heard."
If asked, she'd have no explanation other than she doesn't want the current president to be in office.
When someone is like that, "blah, blah, blah, hippity hoopla" is all they will hear.
I imagine that's why all I heard out of our last president's mouth was "nukuler".
LOL. . .agan, there were only 2 issues that
everyone, no matter what politics they ascribe to, wanted to hear. Those issues were not addressed.
It was a flowery, beautifully delivered speech. Kumbaya!
It filled time. This morning, the pundits on both sides are attempting to seize on anything, but there is little to discuss. Unlike most SOTUs the shelf life of this one is almost over.
For those of you who still don't get it, this is what I wanted to hear.
1. Acknowledgement that we have grown debt and spending to an unsustainable level (current level).
In his introduction he said:
QuoteWe need to take responsibility for our deficit,and reform our government. That's how our people will prosper. That's how we'll win the future.And tonight, I'd like to talk about how we get there
Then he never talked about how we get there. He addressed spending cuts as a freeze and only on 12% of the actual budget. That will do nothing to reduce the deficit. We will owe more in interest than that in 5 years.
2. Acknowledgement that jobs are a real priority. 9.4% unemployment and 20% underemployment is unacceptable.
He offers some great long term goals just as he did in the last SOTU. No immediate solutions. On the contrary, he is posing the exact same jobs policy as last year, but giving it only a slight reference. He uses the word "investment" in place of stimulus this time.
Eliminating tax cuts for energy companies, asking for a repeal of the current tax structure for the wealthy (employers) will not create any jobs, and will do very little to stimulate investment in new industry.
He never even mentioned the word unemployment. It's almost like he has grown comfortable with an underemployed electorate or dependent population. I hope this is not the case.
Gaspar,
I agree unemployment and burgeoning debt are two major issues. Is the SOTU the place we expect to hear specifics on how those issues will get addressed? The speech is largely ceremonial, rarely long on specific detail, and seldom the most significant speech of a president's career. SOTU isn't really supposed to be a nuts and bolts speech.
I think what he did remarkably well was this: he stressed unity. That, right now, is an even bigger problem than unemployment and burgeoning debt and I think he addressed it well even if it was in ideological terms. Details on debt, deficit spending, and helping with free market solutions will come in the weeks to follow. I also give him credit for moving on beyond blaming Bush for the predicament he found himself in when he took office.
I didn't have expectations of the speech or anything specific I wanted to hear him say. I just wanted to view it with an open mind, much as RM suggested yesterday. Overall, I'd give him a B+ to A-. No one is going to be completely happy with what they hear in a President's speech, especially those of us with opposing ideologies. CNN did a flash poll last night showing 77% of the people they polled like the speech. They did do a disclaimer that most people in the sample were Democrats as they claim people of opposing parties don't usually turn in to the SOTU. I tend to disagree this year if you can get a pulse from social networking and the comments I'm seeing today.
No he didn't fix the country last night and he didn't lay out a precise road map. SOTU is rarely the place we see that much detail.
(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7806/barrypee.jpg)
What are you doing with Guido's new avatar?
Conan,
That is something we can disagree on. I view the SOTU address as the prime opportunity for a president to address the largest national audience. This is the very best forum to review and qualify past efforts, propose new directions, and outline goals.
From the time I was in 4th grade, I have never missed a SOTU. As I was taught in school, it's the president's most important speech. It's purpose has always been clear, the address serves to report on the condition of the United States and give the president a platform to outline his legislative agenda, national priorities, and anything that requires the cooperation of the congress.
As spelled out in the constitution: He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.
With changes in technology, The requirement has grown from a simple report to congress, into a national address important to every American Citizen. It's carried on every network, and it's audience extends around the world.
It is a very important part of our culture as a nation. I strongly disagree that it should be in any way discounted as a ceremonial fluff. I think that is a big part of the political problems we have today, too many people are without the attention span to process this type of information and deem it important.
It is the most access to the public that a president has during his term. The very best opportunity to establish a clear path. It's not a pep-rally.
Quote from: Townsend on January 26, 2011, 10:01:28 AM
The same that can be said over and over. I was impressed with the end.
The resounding sound of crickets put an emphasis on it.
Crickets you say?
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101260007
Quote from: Conan71 on January 26, 2011, 11:37:16 AM
Gaspar,
I agree unemployment and burgeoning debt are two major issues. Is the SOTU the place we expect to hear specifics on how those issues will get addressed? The speech is largely ceremonial, rarely long on specific detail, and seldom the most significant speech of a president's career. SOTU isn't really supposed to be a nuts and bolts speech.
I think what he did remarkably well was this: he stressed unity. That, right now, is an even bigger problem than unemployment and burgeoning debt and I think he addressed it well even if it was in ideological terms. Details on debt, deficit spending, and helping with free market solutions will come in the weeks to follow. I also give him credit for moving on beyond blaming Bush for the predicament he found himself in when he took office.
I didn't have expectations of the speech or anything specific I wanted to hear him say. I just wanted to view it with an open mind, much as RM suggested yesterday. Overall, I'd give him a B+ to A-. No one is going to be completely happy with what they hear in a President's speech, especially those of us with opposing ideologies. CNN did a flash poll last night showing 77% of the people they polled like the speech. They did do a disclaimer that most people in the sample were Democrats as they claim people of opposing parties don't usually turn in to the SOTU. I tend to disagree this year if you can get a pulse from social networking and the comments I'm seeing today.
No he didn't fix the country last night and he didn't lay out a precise road map. SOTU is rarely the place we see that much detail.
Well said.
When people start using phrases like, "You just don't get it" or "For those of you who don't get it" etc. they just get tuned out by most folks. Where do these people get the arrogance and smugness to think only they "get it"?
Quote from: Breadburner on January 26, 2011, 12:39:38 PM
(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7806/barrypee.jpg)
You've always been an donkey, you continue to prove you're still an donkey with each post. How you remain on here is astounding.
Breadburner's not so much into that unity thing. More into the whole douchebag thing.
Says something about this forum when we filter out a word describing the north end of a south bound donkey and is also used frequently in the Bible, but allow a degrading photoshopped pic of our president urinating in public. I don't expect much from a guy who I'm pretty sure is an area baker (do his customers know what a creep he is?) But I do expect more from our censors.
You know, I'll go even farther. During the Nixon administration I knew guys who were arrested and charged with desecration after doing nothing more than wearing a flag stitched into their leather jackets or on the seat of their pants. Perhaps its time to call Homeland Security and note his anti-patriot, maybe even terrorist leanings.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 26, 2011, 12:52:31 PM
Conan,
That is something we can disagree on. I view the SOTU address as the prime opportunity for a president to address the largest national audience. This is the very best forum to review and qualify past efforts, propose new directions, and outline goals.
From the time I was in 4th grade, I have never missed a SOTU. As I was taught in school, it's the president's most important speech. It's purpose has always been clear, the address serves to report on the condition of the United States and give the president a platform to outline his legislative agenda, national priorities, and anything that requires the cooperation of the congress.
As spelled out in the constitution: He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.
With changes in technology, The requirement has grown from a simple report to congress, into a national address important to every American Citizen. It's carried on every network, and it's audience extends around the world.
It is a very important part of our culture as a nation. I strongly disagree that it should be in any way discounted as a ceremonial fluff. I think that is a big part of the political problems we have today, too many people are without the attention span to process this type of information and deem it important.
It is the most access to the public that a president has during his term. The very best opportunity to establish a clear path. It's not a pep-rally.
You said it yourself: "With changes in technology..."
We are surrounded 24/7 by an overwhelming amount of information coming out of Washington. Much of what trickles into the ears and eyes of citizens has had a heavy filter applied to it and there is much data which is spun to the benefit of one candidate, office holder, or party. Throwing out more numbers in the SOTU really accomplishes little other than giving fodder for the skeptical and a nod of the head from those who agree with anything you say. You don't have to have the SOTU to convey specific stats and
the message in the speech will most generally reflect the general mood of the country. I've never viewed it as the same sort of speech a CEO gives to the shareholders at the annual meeting where we look at income and expense, sales goals for the next year and the like. The idea is bringing the entire country together for one night and
briefing them on where we are, where we are going, and to dispense some insightful or hopeful philosophy.
For what it's worth, President Obama has done a good job in recent weeks disseminating information on how he intends to streamline government and to try and make it easier for companies to do business and hire and cutting down on a redundant and expensive government. Those points have been made and well-publicized. Whether or not those initiatives will become reality remain to be seen. I give him an "A" for these ideas and an "incomplete" on the execution of them.
(FWIW, I did note he addressed the blue ribbon panel on deficit reduction's recommendations in general).
He could have said we will cut spending to 1995 levels, 2000 levels, or 2005 levels and it still would be a divisive number. He could have said we will cut u/e to under 7% by the end of the year. It would have fallen on deaf ears or treated with disbelief from those who simply won't agree or find the probability of it happening between slim and nil.
His speech was a smartly strategic move right now. What's been the biggest political and social story in the media the last two weeks? Tucson. Was the shooting addressed in depth? Of course not. The message which has come from that incident, especially with incorrect political overtones is that of a very deep divide in this country.
Something which is tucked in to the psyche of many Americans right now is how have we become so viciously divided, and can we ever be united, or will the vitriol keep growing?You and I will have to disagree because, IMO, the underlying premise of the speech was a very timely and very topical message of a united republic. It highlights the fact that no matter what numbers he could have thrown out last night, none of it is relevant if all of us are not willing to compromise and work together. Republicans simply cannot demand every solution will come from the right during this Congress or it will shift back left in the next election and so it will go with more time wasted trying to undo the effects of legislation from the previous Congress that the new Congress doesn't like.
He took a cue from one of the greatest uniters this country will ever see: President Reagan. Calling it Reaganesque is a bit over the top, but it was most certainly styled in the spirit of trying to become a unifier.
That all being said, I assure you this was a carefully calculated speech to make him come off as moderate as possible while still pleasing the broad interests of his own party like speaking on alternative energy as one method to bolster the economy and jobs. I did not care for the way he characterized "gifts" (or however he worded it) the oil companies have been getting and I really don't see how taxing one industry to pay for the development of another is rational or fair but it was one way his writers see as a logical way to get people to believe jobs can be created (ergo, the u/e issue). Anyone else note how the shout-out on DADT was not appreciated nor applauded by the two high-ranking military officials (Joint COS?).
He said it best (paraphrasing of course): we will be arguing about how to move forward on the work which needs to be done but that we can all seek to find common ground and work together. I honestly cannot see how that missed the mark of the overall condition of the country right now because without some sort of unity, all of these problems will still be problems in two, four, or ten years.
Don't worry, I'm not anywhere close to becoming an Obama shrimper but I approve of the way he's altered the message recently, whether it's the "real" Obama or better handlers, I can't say. I simply think he took a slightly different track with the speech that some were not expecting. His recent editorial in WSJ and letter in USA Today have been novel approaches of getting the message out in advance of the SOTU. Regardless of the message he put out last night, the GOP leadership would have been talking about "unrealistic numbers" "he spent us into this mess" and all the obstacles to creating jobs if he'd dwelled on data all night. Instead he focused on something we haven't heard much about lately.
Quote from: waterboy on January 26, 2011, 02:02:33 PM
Says something about this forum when we filter out a word describing the north end of a south bound donkey and is also used frequently in the Bible, but allow a degrading photoshopped pic of our president urinating in public. I don't expect much from a guy who I'm pretty sure is an area baker (do his customers know what a creep he is?) But I do expect more from our censors.
You know, I'll go even farther. During the Nixon administration I knew guys who were arrested and charged with desecration after doing nothing more than wearing a flag stitched into their leather jackets or on the seat of their pants. Perhaps its time to call Homeland Security and note his anti-patriot, maybe even terrorist leanings.
Easy. I thought the president was simply playing with his putter.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 26, 2011, 02:46:30 PM
He said it best (paraphrasing of course): we will be arguing about how to move forward on the work which needs to be done but that we can all seek to find common ground and work together. I honestly cannot see how that missed the mark of the overall condition of the country right now because without some sort of unity, all of these problems will still be problems in two, four, or ten years.
Perhaps I've become too narrow in my expectations. I guess I was only considering the obvious issues as speech fodder.
I never considered the massive divide between political ideologies created over the past few years as the most important issue. I view it more as a symptom of disease. During times of prosperity people from differing parties and philosophies tend to work well together and even grow through disagreement. During hard times our philosophical (political) differences divide us even more. I think that's natural. Is it healthy? Probably not.
Over the last few years we have had two parties so at odds that they use legislation as a weapon against each other, passing bills for the sake of angering their opponents without regard for the content of the bills or how it affects the people. Not even taking the time to read legislation and stuffing so much unrelated material into bills that they are impossible to understand or score financially.
Perhaps now that President Obama has shed the most divisive congress in history he really will turn his efforts to building bridges, and repairing the social damage that has taken place. I'm all for this, but is it treating the symptom or the disease?
The pendulum always swings towards the middle after the apex. His speech did capture that, as have his actions over the last few weeks. But that's a no-brainer only direction he has left to go is towards unity. His speech was masterfully crafted to capture this, however I do not admire medicine that treats the symptoms without also treating the disease.
So now I suppose we wait and see, does he keep issuing pain killers or address the problems.
Will he work to fix healthcare, and abolish the flaws in the legislation?
Will he eliminate the obstacles to business growth that have slowed recovery?
Will he cut spending or push for more?
Will he reach out to the Conservatives and "sold-out" Liberals?
Will he embrace free enterprise or push for more government control?
Will his focus be on the symptoms, or the disease?
I am not so easily romanced.
Quote from: waterboy on January 26, 2011, 01:27:34 PM
You've always been an donkey, you continue to prove you're still an donkey with each post. How you remain on here is astounding.
For crying out loud get over it. You, too, wevsus. It's just a damned photo-shopped pic. And one more thing, I better not read you griping about me or anyone else name-calling or tossing ad hominems around again.
Quote from: guido911 on January 26, 2011, 05:08:29 PM
I better not read you griping about me or anyone else name-calling or tossing ad hominems around again.
Or he'll eat his can o'spinach and bang - zoom...
Quote from: guido911 on January 26, 2011, 05:08:29 PM
For crying out loud get over it. You, too, wevsus. It's just a damned photo-shopped pic. And one more thing, I better not read you griping about me or anyone else name-calling or tossing ad hominems around again.
Why? You gonna track me down and whip my donkey?
Perhaps you would have responded differently if the pic was of Palin and her husband doing the same thing. Nah, not you. Your always so fair and balanced.
Gaspar, good way to look at it. Though, we could debate endlessly as to whether shrill partisanship is the disease or the symptom. Now you got my brain working again. Good time for some CuCuy. After I get off the bike trainer, of course. (and no that's not a euphemism for FMC) ;)
Up from $200 billion?? Wow, it is just amazing where Gas gets his numbers. Bush's LAST deficit was actually about $1.5 trillion, while Obama's first was about $1.4 and this one is $1.3. See the trend?? It is Down. Not up as every year of Bush.
Still way too high. But then if we hadn't wasted a trillion on an unjustified war. And another 1.2 trillion on bailing out banks. And so on and so on... I guess normal people should feel guilty that they got under half of the $700 billion stimulus - how dare they take money from the government when we are in such bad shape? - but hey, that COULD have gone to big banks and insurance companies again!! Ain't it a shame Bush wasn't elected again?
Quote from: waterboy on January 26, 2011, 05:32:20 PM
Why? You gonna track me down and whip my donkey?
Perhaps you would have responded differently if the pic was of Palin and her husband doing the same thing. Nah, not you. Your always so fair and balanced.
I don't pretend to be "always" fair and balanced. Do you? As for a pic of the Palins doing anything like this, I wouldn't throw a sissified tantrum like you did (primarily because such a pic would be inane since the Palins do not have a patriotism problem).
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2007/11/02/a79fb28.jpg)
Perhaps that Obama photo-shop pic bothered you so much because deep down you know it may be accurate. :D
And nice try by you and Townsend to paint me into some violent thug, especially when you knew I meant that I was going to hang a hypocrite label on you when you accuse me of name-calling. I am content with knocking you guys around in this forum.
Quote from: guido911 on January 26, 2011, 06:00:37 PM
I don't pretend to be "always" fair and balanced. Do you? As for a pic of the Palins doing anything like this, I wouldn't throw a sissified tantrum like you did (primarily because such a pic would be inane since the Palins do not have a patriotism problem).
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2007/11/02/a79fb28.jpg)
Perhaps that Obama photo-shop pic bothered you so much because deep down you know it may be accurate. :D
And nice try by you and Townsend to paint me into some violent thug, especially when you knew I meant that I was going to hang a hypocrite label on you when you accuse me of name-calling. I am content with knocking you guys around in this forum.
(http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Best-of-the-Burgh-Blogs/Pulling-No-Punches/November-2010/Internet-Tough-Guy-Opinions.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on January 26, 2011, 06:00:37 PM
I don't pretend to be "always" fair and balanced. Do you? As for a pic of the Palins doing anything like this, I wouldn't throw a sissified tantrum like you did (primarily because such a pic would be inane since the Palins do not have a patriotism problem).
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2007/11/02/a79fb28.jpg)
Perhaps that Obama photo-shop pic bothered you so much because deep down you know it may be accurate. :D
And nice try by you and Townsend to paint me into some violent thug, especially when you knew I meant that I was going to hang a hypocrite label on you when you accuse me of name-calling. I am content with knocking you guys around in this forum.
That's weak counselor. You think I'm sissified? You think that was a tantrum? You think Obama's patriotism is a problem? You think Palin doesn't have patriotism issues? You think you know what I feel deep down?
You're thinking is suspect. There is no way that pic is acceptable to a real patriot who is so proud of his service to country. You should be just as offended as I am that only two of us found it out of bounds. The pic you posted is obviously just before or after his salute and you join a long train of people who use it to further a lie.
You and Bread should like, hook up or something.
Quote from: waterboy on January 26, 2011, 06:20:34 PM
That's weak counselor. You think I'm sissified? You think that was a tantrum? You think Obama's patriotism is a problem? You think Palin doesn't have patriotism issues? You think you know what I feel deep down?
You're thinking is suspect. There is no way that pic is acceptable to a real patriot who is so proud of his service to country. You should be just as offended as I am that only two of us found it out of bounds. The pic you posted is obviously just before or after his salute and you join a long train of people who use it to further a lie.
You and Bread should like, hook up or something.
They're Frat Boys, water...remember?
;D
Quote from: Hoss on January 26, 2011, 06:28:28 PM
They're Frat Boys, water...remember?
;D
I was a frat guy too. Felta Thigh High. Everyone says they were a member....
Quote from: waterboy on January 26, 2011, 06:20:34 PM
That's weak counselor. You think I'm sissified? You think that was a tantrum? You think Obama's patriotism is a problem? You think Palin doesn't have patriotism issues? You think you know what I feel deep down?
You're thinking is suspect. There is no way that pic is acceptable to a real patriot who is so proud of his service to country. You should be just as offended as I am that only two of us found it out of bounds. The pic you posted is obviously just before or after his salute and you join a long train of people who use it to further a lie.
You and Bread should like, hook up or something.
Oh that's right,
Sarah Palin has patriotism issues. Bwahahahaha
As for being offended, Nope! After all, this is what I put up for years (direct me to your outrage over these):
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkFGYSlzOh_wmCS4qEFTNtGdAflTk1iYFKZdDERKzvR2zMqlD9)
(http://bill4dogcatcher.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/save-mother-earth-kill-bush.png)
(http://bill4dogcatcher.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hang-bush-for-war-crimes.png?w=468)
I'd be a bit careful with the "hook up" stuff. After all, aren't you part of the same 4-5 in this forum that spends their time...oh, nevermind.
Quote from: waterboy on January 26, 2011, 02:02:33 PM
Says something about this forum when we filter out a word describing the north end of a south bound donkey and is also used frequently in the Bible, but allow a degrading photoshopped pic of our president urinating in public. I don't expect much from a guy who I'm pretty sure is an area baker (do his customers know what a creep he is?) But I do expect more from our censors.
You know, I'll go even farther. During the Nixon administration I knew guys who were arrested and charged with desecration after doing nothing more than wearing a flag stitched into their leather jackets or on the seat of their pants. Perhaps its time to call Homeland Security and note his anti-patriot, maybe even terrorist leanings.
Yeah...I put something in your buns and you keep coming back.....
Quote from: Breadburner on January 26, 2011, 07:19:58 PM
Yeah...I put something in your buns and you keep coming back.....
I'd avoid the Miracle Whip if I were you.
Quote from: guido911 on January 26, 2011, 05:08:29 PM
For crying out loud get over it. You, too, wevsus. It's just a damned photo-shopped pic. And one more thing, I better not read you griping about me or anyone else name-calling or tossing ad hominems around again.
If you read back, you'll find I'm not so much into calling you out for ad homs. Callousness, yes; faulty facts, absolutely. But I don't really care if you're a douchebag. That's life, and that's the internet.
And I don't really care that Breadburner's a douchebag, but I'm happy to say so when he posts offensive stuff, which that was. Luckily I'm not a mod who has to decide what to take off the boards. IMO, our mods are permissive to the point of absenteeism -- which actually kinda fits the okie ethic. So be it. So Bready gets to post his douchy 'shopped stuff and I can call him out as the douchebag he is. It's the circle of life, dontcha know.
(http://www.lionking.org/imgarchive/Act_1/CircleOfLife.jpg)
Quote from: we vs us on January 26, 2011, 07:50:55 PM
If you read back, you'll find I'm not so much into calling you out for ad homs. Callousness, yes; faulty facts, absolutely. But I don't really care if you're a douchebag. That's life, and that's the internet.
And I don't really care that Breadburner's a douchebag, but I'm happy to say so when he posts offensive stuff, which that was. Luckily I'm not a mod who has to decide what to take off the boards. IMO, our mods are permissive to the point of absenteeism -- which actually kinda fits the okie ethic. So be it. So Bready gets to post his douchy 'shopped stuff and I can call him out as the douchebag he is. It's the circle of life, dontcha know.
(http://www.lionking.org/imgarchive/Act_1/CircleOfLife.jpg)
Haha...
Popeye and Jackie Gleason reference genius. I'm frankly a little surprised you're good with the image of the flag being urinated on. You defended it, your choice I suppose.
Try to refrain from the personal attacks due to this post...oh what am I saying? I'm sure they'll come.
Folks, beware of Irish bakers. They apparently have sex with their product.
The comments of these two really don't represent the hard work and thought that goes into many of the posts. Neither are their remarks complementary to a forum dedicated to the betterment of Tulsa. In fact they seem to be revealing that we have some arrogant, vulgar, intractable, hate filled...donkeys... that will attack with little reason. They were sort of funny and interesting at first, now they're just offensive.
Remember, people from all over the country read these posts. Many are wanting to escape this type of low quality expression so prevalent around the country. They want to get insights on the personality of the city, not just its restaurants and bars. Can't you guys tone it down a bit?
Quote from: guido911 on January 26, 2011, 07:08:41 PM
Oh that's right, Sarah Palin has patriotism issues. Bwahahahaha
As for being offended, Nope! After all, this is what I put up for years (direct me to your outrage over these):
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkFGYSlzOh_wmCS4qEFTNtGdAflTk1iYFKZdDERKzvR2zMqlD9)
(http://bill4dogcatcher.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/save-mother-earth-kill-bush.png)
(http://bill4dogcatcher.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hang-bush-for-war-crimes.png?w=468)
I'd be a bit careful with the "hook up" stuff. After all, aren't you part of the same 4-5 in this forum that spends their time...oh, nevermind.
Does this stuff work in court?
Seems I remember something about Palin's husband being involved in an organization espousing that Alaska should secede from the rest of the country. It was big news during the election dontcha know. So...where's your pics of the first dude pissing on the flag with his mama bear gleefully watching?
Waterboy,
This IS Oklahoma. Dontcha know....
This board IS mostly a pretty good cross section of the state except for the fact that the RWRE is much more prevalent in reality than represented here. The ratio of posters is more balanced than the state as a whole. As can be seen by who we keep electing to office.
Inhofe
Fallin
Randy Brogdon (now gone)
Randy Terrell
That central OK female that is so psychotic about gays can't remember her name right now.
Just a few examples. When what we need is more Tom Coburn and Dan Boren types and yes, even Brad Henry. Can't figure out how this state elected Henry in the first place?? Rational is just NOT an entry requirement here.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 26, 2011, 05:58:20 PM
Up from $200 billion?? Wow, it is just amazing where Gas gets his numbers. Bush's LAST deficit was actually about $1.5 trillion, while Obama's first was about $1.4 and this one is $1.3. See the trend?? It is Down. Not up as every year of Bush.
Still way too high. But then if we hadn't wasted a trillion on an unjustified war. And another 1.2 trillion on bailing out banks. And so on and so on... I guess normal people should feel guilty that they got under half of the $700 billion stimulus - how dare they take money from the government when we are in such bad shape? - but hey, that COULD have gone to big banks and insurance companies again!! Ain't it a shame Bush wasn't elected again?
From the US Debt ClockThis day in 2008 (January 27, 2008)
Federal Budget Deficit $183,297,688,153 at 7:28 am.
Today's Numbers
Federal Budget Deficit $1,321,347,161,428 Today at 7:29 am.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
Quote from: Gaspar on January 27, 2011, 07:36:00 AM
From the US Debt Clock
This day in 2008 (January 27, 2008)
Federal Budget Deficit $183,297,688,153 at 7:28 am.
Today's Numbers
Federal Budget Deficit $1,321,347,161,428 Today at 7:29 am.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
I'd be quite interested to know what proportion of that number is 1) war related and 2) due to reduced tax receipts caused by the recession.
While the GOP talking point of the day is that new Democratic spending is solely responsible for the debt (with the intimation that the country's debt situation is because the Democrats simply can't wait to give bags of money out to the poor, the indigent, or the unemployed), the truth, I suspect, is far different.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2011, 06:28:12 AM
Waterboy,
This IS Oklahoma. Dontcha know....
This board IS mostly a pretty good cross section of the state except for the fact that the RWRE is much more prevalent in reality than represented here. The ratio of posters is more balanced than the state as a whole. As can be seen by who we keep electing to office.
Inhofe
Fallin
Randy Brogdon (now gone)
Randy Terrell
That central OK female that is so psychotic about gays can't remember her name right now.
Just a few examples. When what we need is more Tom Coburn and Dan Boren types and yes, even Brad Henry. Can't figure out how this state elected Henry in the first place?? Rational is just NOT an entry requirement here.
Yeah, you're probably right. Still no excuse for BB's pic.
Quote from: we vs us on January 27, 2011, 08:04:28 AM
I'd be quite interested to know what proportion of that number is 1) war related and 2) due to reduced tax receipts caused by the recession.
While the GOP talking point of the day is that new Democratic spending is solely responsible for the debt (with the intimation that the country's debt situation is because the Democrats simply can't wait to give bags of money out to the poor, the indigent, or the unemployed), the truth, I suspect, is far different.
Those are valid questions. . .and I am interested in how much is due to government growth, stimulus programs, and discretionary increases in omnibus spending.
Either way, the numbers are valid and striking.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 27, 2011, 08:37:47 AM
Those are valid questions. . .and I am interested in how much is due to government growth, stimulus programs, and discretionary increases in omnibus spending.
Either way, the numbers are valid and striking.
I saw somewhere on the dial this morning that the projected 2011 deficit is $1.5 trillion by CBO figures.
Along the lines of what Wevus brought up, I'm worried the GOP is going to play a shell game with the numbers and continue to blame Democrats for excessive spending. Remember spending is ALWAYS a good idea so long as it's benefitting yourself or those who put you in office.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 27, 2011, 09:58:53 AM
I saw somewhere on the dial this morning that the projected 2011 deficit is $1.5 trillion by CBO figures.
Along the lines of what Wevus brought up, I'm worried the GOP is going to play a shell game with the numbers and continue to blame Democrats for excessive spending. Remember spending is ALWAYS a good idea so long as it's benefitting yourself or those who put you in office.
I guarantee they will! But. . .I don't really care, spending has to be cut. Names and blame are of little consequence. This is an electioneering issue.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 27, 2011, 10:06:05 AM
I guarantee they will! But. . .I don't really care, spending has to be cut. Names and blame are of little consequence. This is an electioneering issue.
I hope the current Congress understands if all we get are more excuses for the next two years and no results, they will be fired and we will try again. I really didn't see the midterm as a mandate for conservatives near as much as people being tired of games and doublespeak and wanting real results. Sooner or later I hope the 537 elected officials in DC get that.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 27, 2011, 10:18:42 AM
I hope the current Congress understands if all we get are more excuses for the next two years and no results, they will be fired and we will try again. I really didn't see the midterm as a mandate for conservatives near as much as people being tired of games and doublespeak and wanting real results. Sooner or later I hope the 537 elected officials in DC get that.
I think that's been a big problem for politicians for a few thousand years. At least.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 27, 2011, 10:18:42 AM
Sooner or later I hope the 537 elected officials in DC get that.
It may take a new batch of 537.
Here is the final reconciled numbers. Debt clock is cute, but only part of the story.
This day in 2008 says 183 billion a few minutes ago. Deficit for the year - 9/30/2008 thru 9/30/2009 was 1.9 trillion. Little discrepancy there.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2011, 12:20:55 PM
Here is the final reconciled numbers. Debt clock is cute, but only part of the story.
This day in 2008 says 183 billion a few minutes ago. Deficit for the year - 9/30/2008 thru 9/30/2009 was 1.9 trillion. Little discrepancy there.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Dude, thats a report on National Debt, not Federal Deficit. . .and your numbers are still wrong.
First, you gotta be able to subtract. Subtract each year from the succeeding year and you have the final year end deficit. Yep, public schools are in really bad shape!
And the numbers aren't mine to be wrong or right. They ARE the Federal government numbers. Well, yeah, there may be some question there....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2011, 06:23:48 PM
First, you gotta be able to subtract. Subtract each year from the succeeding year and you have the final year end deficit. Yep, public schools are in really bad shape!
And the numbers aren't mine to be wrong or right. They ARE the Federal government numbers. Well, yeah, there may be some question there....
LOL!
The federal
budget deficit is calculated by subtracting estimated tax receipts from spending. This is the amount over/under budgetary spending we are at any given time. This number ignores several factors including transfers and public holdings. It's very simple. . .how much is the government spending, minus how much is it taking in.
The
Federal debt is the TOTAL debt held by the public, representing U. S. intergovernmental debt, treasury security debt,
and total public debt (you and I).
These are two completely different things!
When you do as you said above, you get a factor known as Debt Growth,
not Deficit. The federal government can run a surplus and we will still have Debt Growth. In fact, our debt will most likley never decrease and that's fine as long as it remains significantly under GDP.
The public can and should operate under a certain level of debt, however the government should operate budget neutral (balanced). Of course that can be argued dependent on your political philosophy.
(http://www.martingordon.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/the_more_you_know.jpg)
Real (total US debt from year to year) versus imaginary (200 billion deficit for Bush last year).
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 28, 2011, 12:27:24 PM
Real (total US debt from year to year) versus imaginary (200 billion deficit for Bush last year).
I think you should have stopped about half a thread ago.
(http://i687.photobucket.com/albums/vv237/gothcopter/inigo.jpg)