I gave watching this a shot but it didn't last long. First he took credit for GM, but didn't mention that the bailouts started under Bush, the administration he likes to blame for all of the problems. Then he took credit for Ford which had nothing to do with the bailouts. So I turned it off before I threw my TV out the window.
I liked when he mentioned that it's been over 1,000 days since a budget was passed (and how the last one he proposed received not a single vote, from either side of the aisle).
eh.. the speech is just words. turning words into policy is where it gets tricky. for example saying people need to pay their fair share. who determines what a fair share is? "fair" is ambiguous. how do you write law around ambiguity?
eh.. the speech is just words. turning words into policy is where it gets tricky. for example saying people need to pay their fair share. who determines what a fair share is? "fair" is ambiguous. how do you write law around ambiguity? comp_atkins
I dunno. He ran a pretty successful campaign on ambiguity the last time around. "Hope/Change" means a million different things to a million different people.
But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxesPresident Obama
What's stopping you and others from writing a check to the IRS and pay your fair share? Nothing.
If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires.
Yes, Mr. President, like Solyndra, and other selective companies that benefit you. The buck stops with you.
In fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up. You're the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You're the ones who need relief.
I agree. No subsidies. Period. Too bad you don't mean it.
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
I know now that you are a fraud, when you say that a secretary pays more in taxes than a billionaire. I guess there are some people stupid enough to think a 25% tax on let's say $250,000 is more in revenue than 15% on 1 Billion. Also, one pays an income tax, and the other has already paid income tax, and on top of that now a capital gains tax of 15%. And if they don't have an income, they have investments.
We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference - like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That's not right. Americans know it's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country's future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's an America built to last.
You keep saying fair share. You fail to adress that more than half of Americans don't pay anything in Federal Income tax, and that huge portion of Americans get a positive return on their tax return. You fail to say that a small percentage of the Rich pay for a huge majority of the taxes. You complain about the deficit but fail to cut anything of significance. You make strawman arguments Mr. President, because you failed to implement the Simpson's-Bowles commission plan that you appointed. At the ssme time tou promote GE and its CEO, who paid no taxes at all last year. You know how to spend, but not cut.
[quote="President Obama"] But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up. You're the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You're the ones who need relief. Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense. We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference - like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That's not right. Americans know it's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country's future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's an America built to last. Darthkaiser
I'm not an American and I agree with this I'm american and I agree with that.
[QUOTE="Mafiree"]Because investment income is like normal income..... The money the person earned already got taxed once. Taxing investment income is in effect double taxation. So, equating it to regular payroll income taxes is not a logical comparison......SauceKing
where did you hear this one?
private equity and hedge fund managers, have never been taxed on their income... but they are allowed to claim at capital gains rates.
if you make a million dollars a year, when you only had 10,000 how is that double taxation? or do you not understand tax policy? ill explain it because im nice.
EDIT: i saw bill o reilly, make the same lie.
Because the $10,000 was likely already taxed if you are the average citizen......
It sounded good, but then again so did his "Hope & Change" themed address a while back, and well, we saw how that turned out. We can only hope that there is an ounce of sincerity behind his speech.
One of the things that I suspect that people are going to be a bit surprised by is, asObamatruly enters campaign mode and starts laying out his version of what happened the last few years - as opposed to the one-sided Republican version that has been being portrayed for months and months now - people are going to be in for a bit of a jolt.
He's not a socialist. He's not going around apologizing for America. Or a traitor or whatever. Most Americans that aren't either firm liberals or firm conservatives don't pay that much attention between elections. Certain caricatures have been allowed to take root and stick and one sided stories have been put into thepublic'sminds. nocoolnamejim
If Obama is a Socialist, he has a funny way of showing it, then.
I mean, I did not know we redefined Socialist as center-right. Must have missed the memo.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]One of the things that I suspect that people are going to be a bit surprised by is, asObamatruly enters campaign mode and starts laying out his version of what happened the last few years - as opposed to the one-sided Republican version that has been being portrayed for months and months now - people are going to be in for a bit of a jolt.
He's not a socialist. He's not going around apologizing for America. Or a traitor or whatever. Most Americans that aren't either firm liberals or firm conservatives don't pay that much attention between elections. Certain caricatures have been allowed to take root and stick and one sided stories have been put into thepublic'sminds. Blue_Shield
If Obama is a Socialist, he has a funny way of showing it, then.
I mean, I did not know we redefined Socialist as center-right. Must have missed the memo.
>Promise to not bail out banks after financial crisis ends
Funny guy.
coolbeans90
So you think the financial crisis has ended then? Under the Obama administration's policies no less? It's almost like the policies have made things better.
Considering he talked about lowering the corporate tax rate in his LAST State of the Union address(the one before this one) and it still hasn't been done, I have no confidence in this President.
Considering he talked about lowering the corporate tax rate in his LAST State of the Union address(the one before this one) and it still hasn't been done, I have no confidence in this President.
airshocker
It didn't make sense to.
He can now get corporations to make donations now to finance his re-election bid and do this in his next term.
I love how Obama once again talked about Congress coming together and agreeing more on issues, but he wants them to agree with what he thinks only. Ugh.
He can now get corporations to make donations now to finance his re-election bid and do this in his next term.
I love politics....
BranKetra
Sure it did. They'd still give him the same donations, perhaps even more if he had actually what he said he would.
Plus, the Republicans wouldn't be able to criticize him on that particular issue. Win/win.
He's just an ineffective president. He spent his load getting Obamacare passed and that's that.
He's ineffective because he's been held back. That's kind of a weak argument. Almost every president has faced a divided congress that I can remember. From Reagan to Obama, none of them had it easy. This whole garbage about the sides being more polarized is nonsense IMO. I think they've always been that way. It's just some presidents find ways to get crap done. The republicans hated Clinton. Hated him, yet he still got stuff done despite having them out to get em. Dems hated Bush, jr. Yet he got tons of stuff passed including his tax cuts - which every democrat was opposed to in theory.
He can now get corporations to make donations now to finance his re-election bid and do this in his next term.
I love politics....
Sure it did. They'd still give him the same donations, perhaps even more if he had actually what he said he would.
Plus, the Republicans wouldn't be able to criticize him on that particular issue. Win/win.
He's just an ineffective president. He spent his load getting Obamacare passed and that's that.
He's ineffective because he's been held back. False. He had a full congressinal power, AND presidlead, unchecked power for two years. Now, last time I checked 2/3 of 1/3 of Government is not an obstruction, it's an inability to lead.
He's ineffective because he's been held back.BranKetra
Exactly Cantor and his minions have been ****ing with the president for a while.
The Republican head of the Senate Mitch McConnell said their main goal was to make President Obama a one term president. Do not let Cantor and McConnell get away with their bull **** of blaming everything on the President.
Considering he talked about lowering the corporate tax rate in his LAST State of the Union address(the one before this one) and it still hasn't been done, I have no confidence in this President.
Considering he talked about lowering the corporate tax rate in his LAST State of the Union address(the one before this one) and it still hasn't been done, I have no confidence in this President.
shakmaster13
You WANT the corporate tax rate lowered?
I doubt he does, Republicans have been blocking President Obama from fufilling his promises then attacking him for not fufilling his promises. Mitch McConnell Republican leader of the senate said his main goal was making President Obama a one term president.
The speaker of the house John Boehner is always crying (literally he cries alot >_>) probably because he knows he is destroying the country and I think Cantor and Paul Ryan are controlling things behind the scenes in the house.
Case in point was the payroll tax cut where Cantor behind Boehners back rallied enough Republicans to shut the bill down.
Sure it did. They'd still give him the same donations, perhaps even more if he had actually what he said he would.
Plus, the Republicans wouldn't be able to criticize him on that particular issue. Win/win.
He's just an ineffective president. He spent his load getting Obamacare passed and that's that.
He's ineffective because he's been held back. That's kind of a weak argument. Almost every president has faced a divided congress that I can remember. From Reagan to Obama, none of them had it easy. This whole garbage about the sides being more polarized is nonsense IMO. I think they've always been that way. It's just some presidents find ways to get crap done. The republicans hated Clinton. Hated him, yet he still got stuff done despite having them out to get em. Dems hated Bush, jr. Yet he got tons of stuff passed including his tax cuts - which every democrat was opposed to in theory. I guess the presidents opponents were just successful this time. So far, anyway.
I hope you also want to shrink the military down by about 70% and create flat income taxes to make up the money you would lose each year.shakmaster13
What a completely uninformed statement. By closing the loopholes and lowering the over-all rates(lets just say 20%) I'm willing to bet we would see an increase in tax revenue.
[QUOTE="shakmaster13"]I hope you also want to shrink the military down by about 70% and create flat income taxes to make up the money you would lose each year.airshocker
What a completely uninformed statement. By closing the loopholes and lowering the over-all rates(lets just say 20%) I'm willing to bet we would see an increase in tax revenue.
That's kind of what I said, though I don't think it will make us more money if we take out the corporate taxes.
>Promise to not bail out banks after financial crisis ends
Funny guy.
Serraph105
So you think the financial crisis has ended then? Under the Obama administration's policies no less? It's almost like the policies have made things better.
Sh!tty argument. Ad hoc ergo propter hoc.
Nonetheless, yes, the financial sector survived due to gov't intervention w. cash. HOWEVER, that has NOTHING to do with my point.
>Promise to not bail out banks after financial crisis ends
Funny guy.
coolbeans90
So you think the financial crisis has ended then? Under the Obama administration's policies no less? It's almost like the policies have made things better.
Sh!tty argument. Ad hoc ergo propter hoc.
Nonetheless, yes, the financial sector survived due to gov't intervention w. cash. HOWEVER, that has NOTHING to do with my point.
you're point however isn't what I'm currently discussing.
[QUOTE="BranKetra"]He's ineffective because he's been held back.airshocker
He's ineffective because he's an idealogue and inexperienced executive.
He isn't even ineffective. But, I've seen you here enough to know that you know that. You have seen the lists put it by many sources. President Obama is over 60% on pre election promises. Started ou very fast, before republicans got mad at him for passing what the health reform they have long wanted to pass and started blocking everything. Many sources have said he hit the ground running faster than any president in the last 50 years. You may not like what he has done, but he has done a lot. I approved of all of it. I suspect he will get the other 40% done in his second term, which I can't wait to help him achieve.
[QUOTE="Serraph105"] So you think the financial crisis has ended then? Under the Obama administration's policies no less? It's almost like the policies have made things better.Serraph105
Sh!tty argument. Ad hoc ergo propter hoc.
Nonetheless, yes, the financial sector survived due to gov't intervention w. cash. HOWEVER, that has NOTHING to do with my point.
you're point however isn't what I'm currently discussing.
[QUOTE="Serraph105"] you're point however isn't what I'm currently discussing.Serraph105
Then why did you quote me?
I was discussing a conclusion one could easily draw from your statement.
Actually, no
And Obama used that statement as a rhetorical cudgel, (a figurative middle finger towards the banks from the perspective of the audience he was addressing) not a statement that it would be unnecessary in the future. However, you can bet your ass that if sh!t went down in the financial sector that he'd bail them out again.
I can't wait to see how he plans to make it mandatory for kids stay in high school until their 18. What's going to happen if they drop out? Send them to our already overcrowded jails?
Log in to comment