State of the Union

[SultanOfSurreal]

joint chief sulk. nice.

i really like the guy in the front row, in the middle. he looks like an abused puppy

[Titanic]

joint chief sulk. nice.

i really like the guy in the front row, in the middle. he looks like an abused puppy

I like the guy directly behind him, he has a face like Michael Jackson, but with some excessive hair.

[Phatscotty]

memorize? of course he cant, which must say a lot about pre-teleprompter presidents. I guess they just didn't speak

[SultanOfSurreal]

memorize? of course he cant, which must say a lot about pre-teleprompter presidents. I guess they just didn't speak

[Baron Von PWN]

memorize? of course he cant, which must say a lot about pre-teleprompter presidents. I guess they just didn't speak

or maybe they read their speeches? you know, like on paper.

[Timminz]

memorize? of course he cant, which must say a lot about pre-teleprompter presidents. I guess they just didn't speak

This is silly. Even for you, Scott.

[stahrgazer]

Okay, stahrgazer... I didn't really respect a line-item reply, but...

(1) Banks

First of all, it was a combination of deregulation, lack of enforcement, and "new" ideas that brought about this particular financial crisis. Second of all, some of the blame needs to be placed on lenders who made loans to people who cannot afford the loans (similar to the credit card statement you mentioned). In any event, I still don't think there should have been a bailout.

Who in the world do you think the "lenders" are? Your neighbor? It's banks. Their was no de-regulation of the system of retaining financial assets to cover potential losses on bad loans; there was reduction of government oversight. The other new idea was to make extra money trading those bad debts but charging for them as less-risky debts. Lucrative in the short-term, for banks, but everyone along the line failed to remember the regulations that required they hold back cash assets to offset losses. Lack of enforcement is exactly what Obama's trying to correct. How do you punish a bank? Make them pay for their mistake...in cash.

Maybe there should not have been a bailout, but that was Bush who signed those in to begin with. Obama concurred as the only way to keep world finances from collapsing even more than they already had. It affected the global economy because offshore banks saw American banks making buckoo bucks and wanted in on the act. Again, lucrative in the short term, until a few ppl lost jobs, so couldn't afford the mortgages, then a few more, then a few more after that, so nothing was selling. At that point, the house of cards came collapsing down all over the world, because no one held back sufficient assets. But they all took home their bonuses those years!

(2) Manufacturing vs. Service
Our economy is no longer based on the manufacturing industry, and has not been based on the manufacturing industry in some time. Honestly, until and unless India, China, and other countries begin to unionize their workers, US companies will continue to use people in those countries for cheap labor. This is NOT... repeat NOT... a tax thing. I'm a tax attorney... our clients do not go overseas because of taxes. They go overseas because labor is cheap and they can get better incentives from these other companies. This is not a problem that can simply be solved with closing a loophole in the repatriation of money earned overseas.

In Reagan years, our economy WAS still manufacturing based. Post-Reagan, businesses realized they could have their cake and eat it too. Obama's plan says, "Have the cake once, if you want it, but you will not continue to eat it at America's expense." Definitely a good idea to close the tax loopholes that give them the same breaks everyone else gets; plus stimulate manufacturing again. Which is what he wants to do.

(3) Energy
I was referred to the word "nuclear," which I did not hear in his campaign. I heard it in Senator McCain's campaign, however.

You weren't reading or listening, then. Honest. His campaign always included the option of SAFE nuclear energy, especially since building plants increases manufacturing and reduces our dependence on foreign oil which he said numerous times, could NOT be supplanted by drilling our own reserves, our offshore oil reserves do not make up even 25% of our consumptive needs. Thus, his plans also included encouraging auto manufacturers to make fuel-efficient cars and to boost research into green energy... all designed to 1) increase our technology and 2) reduce our oil dependence

(4) Bipartisanship

Whether you want to believe them or not, the Republicans have said and continue to say that they've been completely shut out of any decision making processes with respect to healthcare (and the bailouts and jobs bill). Because the president and the Democrats don't technically need the Republicans, I believe this. If you don't meet with the Republicans, you can't hear their ideas. And there are ideas. I've listed them on numerous occasions in this forum. You can continue to ignore them and pretend the Republicans have not made any proposals, or accept that the Democrats only want to be bipartisan now because they may no longer have a supermajority.

They've said it publicly, but in private (not private, really, just not as publicly...in emails to Republicans which I receive because, well, I'm Republican), the Florida Senators have indicated they're boycotting any meetings they were invited to. From those emails I'm getting, Florida Republicans weren't alone in "just say no" tactics.

(5) Bailouts

You are simply wrong. President Obama signed a number of bailout bills. He admitted that he added to the deficit. In any event, you can have it one way or the other. Either (1) the bailouts, no matter who the president was, are good for the country and therefore both President Bush and President Obama should receive acclaim or (2) the bailouts, no matter who the president was, are bad for the country and therefore both President Bush and President Obama should receive blame. I believe #2. What do you believe?

I believe Bush mishandled the bailouts by not specifying where the bailout money should be used. I don't like the idea of having had to bailout, but as I indicated above, I agree they were necessary to avoid world depression beyond what America saw in the 20's and 30's.

In any event, my point is and will continue to be, that as long as President Obama continues to whine about the prior president, the more he becomes just that... a whiner.

Also, the president did NOT stipulate that the bailouts not be used for bonuses. If you recall, about 10 months ago, there was a big to-do because Gienter was trying to get the bailout money back that was used for bonuses.

Precisely. Ten months ago, those were bailouts that Bush had ushered in.

(6) Lobbysists
The president employs a LOT of lobbyists... here's some analysis. It's all over the internet on all sorts of sites. Just google "President Obama lobbyists"

From January 30, 2009 (!) - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18128.html

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schl ... s-one.html

Haven't read them. Take your word on it.

(7) Supreme Court
He's wrong, sorry. Just read some articles about this (I've read them since I've typed the above... there's a good New York Times column on this).

No, he's accurate.

In sum, you're not a Republican and you're way off base. No offense, but you might want to do a little more reading.

In sum, I'm a Republican but not a Fascist, and I'm not way off base. The only point I may not have read up on properly is the lobbyist idea.

[thegreekdog]

Stahrgazer, let's just say I agree with you on all the other points (because we're probably not really arguing about anything of substance at this point... we seem to agree on how to fix things).

However, on the presiden't statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision, the president was either lying or purposely avoiding the actual issue in the case. I can't emphasize enough how wrong you are when you state that the president was accurate. He was not accurate. I urge you to read the New York Times article published yesterday. It was written by one of the president's supporters.

I've fully dissected his statements regarding the case (above), and there's no arguing about it really. Furthermore, and something I didn't address previously, the case did NOT have anything to do with corporations (or unions) giving money directly to the particular candidate; it had to do with purchasing advertisements.

[Snorri1234]

Stahrgazer, let's just say I agree with you on all the other points (because we're probably not really arguing about anything of substance at this point... we seem to agree on how to fix things).

However, on the presiden't statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision, the president was either lying or purposely avoiding the actual issue in the case. I can't emphasize enough how wrong you are when you state that the president was accurate. He was not accurate. I urge you to read the New York Times article published yesterday. It was written by one of the president's supporters.

I've fully dissected his statements regarding the case (above), and there's no arguing about it really.

I haven't read a dissection by you. All I've read is you saying "wrong" to the argument Stahrgazer made.

Can you tell me exactly where Obama was wrong?

Furthermore, and something I didn't address previously, the case did NOT have anything to do with corporations (or unions) giving money directly to the particular candidate; it had to do with purchasing advertisements.

So? Nobody claimed otherwise.

[thegreekdog]

Snorri, this is what I said on page 5 of this thread:

This is the part where thegreekdog and his attorney wife start screaming obscenities at the television. First off, "century of law" - I didn't know Senator McCain was over 100 years old. Second, "including foreign corporations" - They still can't influence elections. Last, and not least, "right this wrong" - I don't know what justice it was, but someone was shaking his head at this point. Look, we have a separation of powers and the president (an attorney, a Harvard law grad, and a fucking constitutional law professor) is just wrong on this one. He was obnoxious for saying it, and he's wrong.

McCain-Feingold is not a centuries old law. Foreign corporations are not permitted to give money to candidates, and really never have been. Corporations are still not permitted to give unlimited donations to political candidates.

This is where President Obama claimed that corporations could give money directly to candidates:

Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.

I think what the president meant to say was "Well, I don't think advertisements advocating a particular issue or candidate should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests."

[Snorri1234]

McCain-Feingold is not a centuries old law. Foreign corporations are not permitted to give money to candidates, and really never have been. Corporations are still not permitted to give unlimited donations to political candidates.

This is where President Obama claimed that corporations could give money directly to candidates:

Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.

I think what the president meant to say was "Well, I don't think advertisements advocating a particular issue or candidate should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests."

Which would have the exact same outcome. Does it really matter whether an ad showing how evil Clinton is is paid by a candidate or by some company?

He said "elections" because that's the result.


With regards to the foreign entities not being able to donate directly, that's irrelevant. Much like my other point, whether it's directly or not means little for the final outcome.

[Night Strike]

If Obama is so interested in foreign entities not influencing elections, why did he give a campaign speech in Berlin to 200,000 people? It was clearly to foster support in the international community to pressure our people to vote for him by claiming the rest of the world work look upon is more favorably.

[thegreekdog]

joint chief sulk. nice.

i really like the guy in the front row, in the middle. he looks like an abused puppy

Are the joint chiefs supposed to have a reaction? I was under the impression they had to be like the Supreme Court.

[thegreekdog]

Which would have the exact same outcome. Does it really matter whether an ad showing how evil Clinton is is paid by a candidate or by some company?

He said "elections" because that's the result.


With regards to the foreign entities not being able to donate directly, that's irrelevant. Much like my other point, whether it's directly or not means little for the final outcome.

Regarding one - no, I suppose not.

Regarding two - That is the result... he did not say elections because that is the result; he said elections because he is fearmongering. He wants the American people to freak out because of this case and he wants to be on the side that is most popular. It's politicking dude.

Regarding three - Yeah? So? They could indirectly donate loot prior to the case, and they can do it now. Again... fear mongering.

It's all well and good to disagree with me on this one; however, every single political pundit (liberal or conservative) and every single legal scholar have commented negatively on this portion of the president's speech. You know how you get mad when people are sketpical of global warming? Yeah, I'm mad for the same reasons.

[Snorri1234]

Regarding two - That is the result... he did not say elections because that is the result; he said elections because he is fearmongering. He wants the American people to freak out because of this case and he wants to be on the side that is most popular. It's politicking dude.

?
I'm saying that the common belief is that this will harm elections and be incredibly bad. He said "elections" because he thinks, along with a lot of people, this decision is going to influence elections quite a bit.

Regarding three - Yeah? So? They could indirectly donate loot prior to the case, and they can do it now. Again... fear mongering.

Yeah but the point is that it's not wrong to state it.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1913

It's all well and good to disagree with me on this one; however, every single political pundit (liberal or conservative) and every single legal scholar have commented negatively on this portion of the president's speech.

Really? Aside from comments about how it was sorta bad etiquette I've heard quite a few voices agreeing with Obama.

[thegreekdog]

Could you post links to who agrees with him? Seriously, I'd like to see them.

[Snorri1234]

Could you post links to who agrees with him? Seriously, I'd like to see them.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_c ... index.html

Yeah, it's the Salon. I'll try and look some more but I get most of my discussions on politics from fora, listening to pundits it boring. Also check the link in my previous post.


Also, over a century of law? Not a lie it seems.

[thegreekdog]

Could you post links to who agrees with him? Seriously, I'd like to see them.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_c ... index.html

Yeah, it's the Salon. I'll try and look some more but I get most of my discussions on politics from fora, listening to pundits it boring. Also check the link in my previous post.


Also, over a century of law? Not a lie it seems.

The Salon article seems to hinge on "money laundered through US corporations" - Again, this is something that could occur before the US Supreme Court decision.

The Tillman Act of 1907 was struck down by the case? Here's what the dissent says about the Tillman Act:

"Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907. We have unanimously concluded that this "reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process..." and have accepted the "legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particular careful regulation..." The point of the dissent is that we've always limited spending by corporations on campaigns, starting with the Tillman Act.

The majority doesn't mention the Tillman Act. In fact, the only bill that is struck down is one section of the McCain-Feingold Act (s. 441b). That's it. In other words, the Tillman Act was not in fact struck down.

[Titanic]

I have no idea whether Obama's statement was right as I have little knowledge of the history of US Law, but Greek, do you agree with the decision that the Supreme Court made?

[thegreekdog]

I have no idea whether Obama's statement was right as I have little knowledge of the history of US Law, but Greek, do you agree with the decision that the Supreme Court made?

I'm still not sure. I want to see how it plays out. I like to think I'm a strict constructionist (i.e. if it's not in the constitution, it's not in the constitution; you want to change it, amend the constitution) so I think that free speech should not be violated in any event (whether it's corporations buying campaign ads or pornography on NBC). At the same time, the amount of influence corporations and unions have on our politicians bothers me (and it bothered me before this decision).

So, my hope is that when a corporation or union runs an ad, we'll know who it is and who they support; and thus we can act accordingly. I'm not sure this will happen though.

[Titanic]

I have no idea whether Obama's statement was right as I have little knowledge of the history of US Law, but Greek, do you agree with the decision that the Supreme Court made?

I'm still not sure. I want to see how it plays out. I like to think I'm a strict constructionist (i.e. if it's not in the constitution, it's not in the constitution; you want to change it, amend the constitution) so I think that free speech should not be violated in any event (whether it's corporations buying campaign ads or pornography on NBC). At the same time, the amount of influence corporations and unions have on our politicians bothers me (and it bothered me before this decision).

So, my hope is that when a corporation or union runs an ad, we'll know who it is and who they support; and thus we can act accordingly. I'm not sure this will happen though.

We'll know who they are supporting as they will more than likely be demeaning the opposition or praising their guy so he looks like the messiah. I don't see how this is a free speech issue though, we're not trying to bind their mouths in any way by preventing them from donating to or running political campaigns.

[Snorri1234]

The Salon article seems to hinge on "money laundered through US corporations" - Again, this is something that could occur before the US Supreme Court decision.

What the hell are you on about?

Before the US Supreme Court decision corporations couldn't use money to influence elections, so it didn't matter that those corporations were owned by foreign entities.

The Tillman Act of 1907 was struck down by the case? Here's what the dissent says about the Tillman Act:

"Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907. We have unanimously concluded that this "reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process..." and have accepted the "legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particular careful regulation..." The point of the dissent is that we've always limited spending by corporations on campaigns, starting with the Tillman Act.

The majority doesn't mention the Tillman Act. In fact, the only bill that is struck down is one section of the McCain-Feingold Act (s. 441b). That's it. In other words, the Tillman Act was not in fact struck down.

Are you deliberately being dumb or something?

There is over a century of law based on the idea that corporations should be limited in their spending on elections. The Supreme's courts ruling basically said "f*ck that noise" and let corporations spend whatever money they want.

It goes against the spirit of the law is Obama's point. You might disagree with him on whether it's bad, but you can't deny that this ruling clearly acts against the idea behind the Tillman act.

[Night Strike]

Are you deliberately being dumb or something?

There is over a century of law based on the idea that corporations should be limited in their spending on elections. The Supreme's courts ruling basically said "f*ck that noise" and let corporations spend whatever money they want.

It goes against the spirit of the law is Obama's point. You might disagree with him on whether it's bad, but you can't deny that this ruling clearly acts against the idea behind the Tillman act.

The Court did not say f' that to barring foreign companies because they never overturned the act barring foreign companies. You're putting your own words into Obama's point, because that is clearly NOT what he said.

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

Obama clearly said that century's worth of law was overturned, but IT WAS NOT! So quit trying to make excuses for Obama's obvious fabrication.

[Snorri1234]

Are you deliberately being dumb or something?

There is over a century of law based on the idea that corporations should be limited in their spending on elections. The Supreme's courts ruling basically said "f*ck that noise" and let corporations spend whatever money they want.

It goes against the spirit of the law is Obama's point. You might disagree with him on whether it's bad, but you can't deny that this ruling clearly acts against the idea behind the Tillman act.

The Court did not say f' that to barring foreign companies because they never overturned the act barring foreign companies. You're putting your own words into Obama's point, because that is clearly NOT what he said.

Are you fucking dumb as well? Not only is the "foreign" bit tangential to the real point, but because of the particular way American corporation are defined corporations in the USA owned entirely by foreign entities (like governments) NOW HAVE THESE EXACT SAME RIGHTS.


Seriously, is your inability to read so big? Are you unable to follow reasoning?

[thegreekdog]

Are you deliberately being dumb or something?

There is over a century of law based on the idea that corporations should be limited in their spending on elections. The Supreme's courts ruling basically said "f*ck that noise" and let corporations spend whatever money they want.

It goes against the spirit of the law is Obama's point. You might disagree with him on whether it's bad, but you can't deny that this ruling clearly acts against the idea behind the Tillman act.

The Court did not say f' that to barring foreign companies because they never overturned the act barring foreign companies. You're putting your own words into Obama's point, because that is clearly NOT what he said.

Are you fucking dumb as well? Not only is the "foreign" bit tangential to the real point, but because of the particular way American corporation are defined corporations in the USA owned entirely by foreign entities (like governments) NOW HAVE THESE EXACT SAME RIGHTS.


Seriously, is your inability to read so big? Are you unable to follow reasoning?

It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.