State of the Union 2014

[T Town Tommy]

How old are you roughly? Not saying you can't lift yourself out of poverty in today's world but I would argue today's millenial generation have a tougher climb than previous genarations. In 1968 you could walk down to the factory and tell the manager I'd like a job and get hired. In the 1970s state universities had a greater percentage of their cost government, tuitions have sored. Student loan debt is over a trillion dollars. Student was unheard of in the 50s, 60s, and 70s as you used to be able to work your way through college on a minimum to low wage job. Sometime graduate and doctoral students would acrew student but it was rare for a four year degree.

I no clue how old you are perhaps you are a millenial that has beaten the odds. I assume being in poverty you went to public school. Without public education you don't make it. Today's conservative philosophy is gut public education go with charter schools. Would you have been able to afford going to a charter school growing up? The other thing about charter schools is that there is a hidden agenda to ensure "conservative values" mainly no evolution, climate change doesn't exist kind of values are taught in schools.

I am 46 years old. Graduated from college in the late 80s. Since you ask about my early childhood I will tell you a little. Grew up in a very rural part of Ky in a three room house with no indoor plumbing. Took my first shower in a bathroom with running water when I was a sophomore in high school. Lived off primarily what we grew on our land. Attended a small school where basic educational needs were met. The only real thoughts to the "real" world is what I saw on black and white TV or whenever I saw an airliner fly by overhead. I had dreams of becoming a pilot when I saw that and knew at an early age that I wanted more than what I had at that point. Long story short, against a lot of odds, and a lot of people telling me I couldn't. I decided I could. Went on to college through scholarship, graduated, and have tried like hell since that day to give to those "less fortunate" than me.

Now, I am a proponent of school vouchers. If you live in an area where the school system underperforms, then by all means, you should be able to send your child to a school that can meet their needs. I see what the public school systems offer today and how their unions protect even the worst teachers. Grad rates in Alabama public school systems are atrocious. So yes... I should have the right to pick and choose for my child based on that.

End of the day, kids today have way more opportunities to make it than I did. Way too many programs in place, even for the worst of environments for kids. All it takes is for them to step up and decide they want different for themselves than they currently have. And it is up to us to support them in their endeavors. Not social engineering or income redistribution.

 

[GoIrish41]

I am 46 years old. Graduated from college in the late 80s. Since you ask about my early childhood I will tell you a little. Grew up in a very rural part of Ky in a three room house with no indoor plumbing. Took my first shower in a bathroom with running water when I was a sophomore in high school. Lived off primarily what we grew on our land. Attended a small school where basic educational needs were met. The only real thoughts to the "real" world is what I saw on black and white TV or whenever I saw an airliner fly by overhead. I had dreams of becoming a pilot when I saw that and knew at an early age that I wanted more than what I had at that point. Long story short, against a lot of odds, and a lot of people telling me I couldn't. I decided I could. Went on to college through scholarship, graduated, and have tried like hell since that day to give to those "less fortunate" than me.

Now, I am a proponent of school vouchers. If you live in an area where the school system underperforms, then by all means, you should be able to send your child to a school that can meet their needs. I see what the public school systems offer today and how their unions protect even the worst teachers. Grad rates in Alabama public school systems are atrocious. So yes... I should have the right to pick and choose for my child based on that.

End of the day, kids today have way more opportunities to make it than I did. Way too many programs in place, even for the worst of environments for kids. All it takes is for them to step up and decide they want different for themselves than they currently have. And it is up to us to support them in their endeavors. Not social engineering or income redistribution.

Income is redistributed upward as it stands. The minimum wage argument I made several posts back is a good example of this. Rich are getting richer because they are paying less in real dollars than they did previously. This is not talked about enough.

 

[chicago51]

I think you should read this paper. You might like it.

It focuses on inequality thru consumption rather than incomes, since incomes tend to fluctuate wildly over one's lifetime. Consumption tends to be more stable over time, thus a better measurement. Additionally, the goal of income is to buy things to consume. So, skip the income part (since as many have pointed out, income on a tax return fails to capture certain things, like EITC, health care, etc) and get to consumption, which what matters most to the typical household anyway. So if the money transfers systems in place today are successful, consumption is where you would see it.

It's an interesting view point if nothing else at all.

http://www.aei.org/files/2012/06/25/-a-new-measure-of-consumption-inequality_142931647663.pdf

I do agree consumption tends to be a better measure. I would agree household appliances, food, and energy consumption has kept relatively flat. The report doesn't go into higher health care cost very much or the cost of a higher education.

The report also fails to address personal/private debt crisis. I know people are freaking out about the public federal debt being roughly 90 percent of GDP. After WWII it was like 120 percent. Private debt though after WWII was 50 percent of GDP. Private debt today is 38 trillion dollars more than 200 percent of GDP. The report fails go into how much the average American faimily goes into debt to afford what the 1960s family had.

FYI it goes untalked about but this private debt is unsustainable and when this bubble burst it could make 1929 look like a joke. From student debt, to credit card debt, to mortgage debt things are worse than ever when you look at debt it takes to afford things people had "back in the good old days".

 

[Irish YJ]

The liberal argument is the one that Chicago made ... that the deck should not be stacked against the success of the majority in favor of the few. A level playing field is what we are after.

I appreciate and respect your rise out of poverty. I have taken a similar journey and know and understand how difficult it was. It would be easy for me to look down on those who haven't followed my path, but once I climbed the ladder a bit, I made the personal choice to hold that ladder to help others have a steadier climb than I did to get to the next level. I agree whole heartedly about personal responsibility, but when there are so many people in a pit and that pit is full of quicksand, there are only so many people who can climb the ladder at a time. Should the rest just smother? How long should they wait before they lose all hope? Escaping poverty isn't easy, nor is it logical that everyone can just will themselves out of it by sheer force of personaliy and effort. The playing field isn't level and in many cases the ladder has fallen to the ground and been buried by the victims of the society, whether it be via stigma or actual policy roadblocks. In many circles, these are people who have come to be known as second class citizens who doen't have what it takes to make it to the top (or even the middle). What we are talking about is raising the ladder and holding it steady so that others can climb out and join the middle class. Equality, fair play. I suspect that is what you will hear the president talk about tonight.

Climbing a ladder requires effort. I'm all for holding the ladder. I'm OK with also providing a ladder (education). I am not OK with pushing a person up that ladder, or providing them with a free elevator ride. I've shared my family's past previously. Effort, and making the right choices were key to improving our situations over the PAST 4 GENERATIONS. It took a long time to get from the outhouse of my grandparents and parents, to the life I live today. It was not overnight, and we did not receive aid. I do believe anyone can improve their situations if they give the effort, and make the right choices.

The sad thing is that people like you believe everyone should get a free pass on the effort and right choices aspect, and that the people who have made it, or who's family has made it, should feel guilty about their success.

In short, any assistance outside of temporary "get on your feet", or "get educated" help will create reliance on the government. That in turn gets out of hand, snowballs, and provides no incentive for some (not all) to improve.

Several times a month I'm at the grocery, or other stores where I see EBT used for things that it should not. Almost every day I pass a subsidized housing area and luxury automobiles coming in and out. Several times a week I listen to a few of my employees discuss how best to "get over" on the government while complaining about their pay because their car payment is over $700 a month. They are the same employees who elected to forgo the company provided insurance in lieu of getting more pay.

Sorry, but these are facts, and more common than most left wingers would like to admit. The fact is, not everyone wants to work hard. Some are happy to take. Just like there is good and evil, there is hard working and lazy. There are people who make good choices and those who make bad. I'm a realist. Not a pessimist, nor optimist.

In short, everyone deserves an education. As much as they want assuming they put the effort in, and make the grades. If they aren't smart enough for college, they should be given the opportunity to go learn a trade. That's about as socialist as I want to become (free education). All of this requires effort and commitment. After that, you have the tools. Not everybody can be a rocket scientist or CEO.

The world needs hamburger flippers and greeters too. What ticks me off, is that kids drop out of HS left and right and don't even take advantage of the free education that is available now. So not sure giving everyone free college or trade education is going to change anything.... Anyway, that same kid that drops out of HS because they don't care,,,,, sure, I'm worried about his future, and sure, I really want my tax money going to further support his bad choices past, present, and future.

 

[Rizzophil]

Are we really so cynical that we will dismiss the president's message before he delivers it? I'm going to watch to hear what he has to say. It is a small price to pay as a citizen of the country to listen to our leader lay out his goals for the year and challenge Congress to get on board. My understanding is that he is going to lean more heavily on the executive order this year because he is tired of waiting for Congress to get their shit together. If he talks about that, I think watching the Rs' rage take hold is going to be more compelling television than anything else that will be on TV tonight.

Yes. History would suggest he doesn't tell the whole truth. And he has broken every campaign promise.

 

[chicago51]

U

I am 46 years old. Graduated from college in the late 80s. Since you ask about my early childhood I will tell you a little. Grew up in a very rural part of Ky in a three room house with no indoor plumbing. Took my first shower in a bathroom with running water when I was a sophomore in high school. Lived off primarily what we grew on our land. Attended a small school where basic educational needs were met. The only real thoughts to the "real" world is what I saw on black and white TV or whenever I saw an airliner fly by overhead. I had dreams of becoming a pilot when I saw that and knew at an early age that I wanted more than what I had at that point. Long story short, against a lot of odds, and a lot of people telling me I couldn't. I decided I could. Went on to college through scholarship, graduated, and have tried like hell since that day to give to those "less fortunate" than me.

Now, I am a proponent of school vouchers. If you live in an area where the school system underperforms, then by all means, you should be able to send your child to a school that can meet their needs. I see what the public school systems offer today and how their unions protect even the worst teachers. Grad rates in Alabama public school systems are atrocious. So yes... I should have the right to pick and choose for my child based on that.

End of the day, kids today have way more opportunities to make it than I did. Way too many programs in place, even for the worst of environments for kids. All it takes is for them to step up and decide they want different for themselves than they currently have. And it is up to us to support them in their endeavors. Not social engineering or income redistribution.

More programs in place? Regan for better or worse ended most of the LBJ Great Society programs because he actually claimed they work so well they were no longer needed.

I'm not defending the public school system and I agree it doesn't need reform. There is a
clear agenda with privatizing education to teach certain values and ignore others.

Lastly I tip my hat to you for your sucess as even though you did it an era prior to trade policies and technology destroyed millions of jobs it is still a great credit to you.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I do agree consumption tends to be a better measure. I would agree household appliances, food, and energy consumption has kept relatively flat. The report doesn't go into higher health care cost very much or the cost of a higher education.

The report also fails to address personal/private debt crisis. I know people are freaking out about the public federal debt being roughly 90 percent of GDP. After WWII it was like 120 percent. Private debt though after WWII was 50 percent of GDP. Private debt today is 38 trillion dollars more than 200 percent of GDP. The report fails go into how much the average American faimily goes into debt to afford what the 1960s family had.

FYI it goes untalked about but this private debt is unsustainable and when this bubble burst it could make 1929 look like a joke. From student debt, to credit card debt, to mortgage debt things are worse than ever when you look at debt it takes to afford things people had "back in the good old days".

I think the consumer has deleveraged quite a bit. In fact, we are at the lowest level compared to 1980 when measuring debt service payments relative to disposable income.

 

[Irish YJ]

We also already know what the message is.
I don't feel like wasting hours listening to politicians politic, be it left or right.

The saddest thing about this whole situation is the majority of people don't trust the government (not left or right, but in general), yet hop on one side or another. The entire political system is broke, and is simply a sham giving career politicians money, elite status, and benefits not afforded to the "small guy" that they are there to represent in the first place.

I'd love to see the current party system abolished. Let those elected run purely on issues, not the issues that the party picks for them. Hell, let people vote the issues directly. It's not like we don't have the technology to make it happen. The number of people voting is much, much smaller than people that have internet capable devices. Hell, make issue education, and voting on those issues mandatory for all citizens... Extreme?,,,, no, simple. Will never happen because it shifts the power away from politicians, and to the people. Just like a flat or fair tax takes power away, and decreases the size of government...

Sorry, now ranting in general.
Need to leave the thread and focus on working so I can retire outside of the US where my hard earned dollars will last longer.

 

[palinurus]

A leader looks for common ground and tries to negotiate. Obama is a petulant, elitist autocrat with a "pen and a phone," using Executive Order to get what very few people support or elected him to do. What you call "obstructionism" is the political process; executive order abuse is the way autocrats get around the process they can't master.

Really? These flagrant "abuses" have helped to shape and civilize this country.

Equal Employment Opportunity
At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 which bars discrimination in federal employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Affirmative Action
On March 6, 1961 President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

Works Progress Administration
In 1935, at the height of the Great Depression, FDR used Executive Order number 7034 to create the Works Progress Administration, which put more than 8.5 million Americans back to work rebuilding the country one bridge, road, and mural at a time.

Desegregation of Schools
In 1954 the Supreme Court decided Brown vs. Board of Education. But it would take much more than a court order to end school segregation, as the nation saw in 1957 when Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus refused to comply. Dwight D. Eisenhower'S EO 10730 placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent in U.S. army troops to ensure that nine black children could safely attend Little Rock High School.

The Emancipation Proclamation.
The Proclamation freed all slaves living in the Confederacy, though left out the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia, which had yet to secede.

Obama has signed 167 executive orders during his presidency -- roughly half of the number that W. signed.

To the extent you are serious, I'll take a shot at responding.

First, your argument is based on a fallacy: "Other presidents used Executive Orders legitimately; therefore, Obama's use of Executive Orders is legitimate."

Second, Executive Orders are not to be used to achieve what a president cannot achieve through the legislature. That's called "legislating" and it violates the Separation of Powers of the Constitution. Granted, presidents have long used Executive Orders (George Washington used a whopping eight), but they are not an open-ended means of doing an end run around Congress and the courts. When Truman tried to put US steel mills under government control via Executive Order, the Supreme Court struck it down, because it was an attempt to make law. Since then, EOs related to laws were to be allowed only to clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. You'll see that that rule might allow most of the EOs you cite, except maybe for FDR's and, in truth, FDR also had autocratic, elitist instincts, illustrated many times, but in one particular when he tried to pack the Supreme Court with his own appointees, so that he could ignore constitutional strictures the existing Court was upholding, strictures meant to limit the Executive Branch.

The number isn't really relevant, though it may give a clue. But what really matters is whether the president is trying to legislate through EO. If a president says "Congress won't enact gun laws; I'll do it through EO," that's legislating. To the extent Congress and the Courts sit by silently and let him do it, it is a breach of their responsibility. All of us, left, right, and middle, ought to be worried about that, because it means that power is in few hands; it might be in hands we like at the moment, but the worm turns, and then what?

(I should add, I am not accepting that the uses of EOs you cite were all legitimate uses. The reality is that presidents have been abusing EOs for a long time, and Clinton and Bush II were among the worst.)

 

[chicago51]

We also already know what the message is.
I don't feel like wasting hours listening to politicians politic, be it left or right.

The saddest thing about this whole situation is the majority of people don't trust the government (not left or right, but in general), yet hop on one side or another. The entire political system is broke, and is simply a sham giving career politicians money, elite status, and benefits not afforded to the "small guy" that they are there to represent in the first place.

I'd love to see the current party system abolished. Let those elected run purely on issues, not the issues that the party picks for them. Hell, let people vote the issues directly. It's not like we don't have the technology to make it happen. The number of people voting is much, much smaller than people that have internet capable devices. Hell, make issue education, and voting on those issues mandatory for all citizens... Extreme?,,,, no, simple. Will never happen because it shifts the power away from politicians, and to the people. Just like a flat or fair tax takes power away, and decreases the size of government...

Sorry, now ranting in general.
Need to leave the thread and focus on working so I can retire outside of the US where my hard earned dollars will last longer.

I agree with a lot of this especially on voting for issues directly but I feel it is this sort of attitude is why the political system, I think iwill remain broke until 1) we get the money out of politics which is an uphill climb 2) constiuents demand more from their law makers. I wish people would be more invovled which is difficult when we have to work our rear ends off to the point we are too tired to give a crap.

However when people say "oh our system is broke both parties suck blah blah" we are doing exactly what the plutocratic aerostocrisy wants us to do. If people applied more pressure to phone calls, and even something as simple signing virtual petitions it would greatly help the situation. We don't have a democracy anymore because the majority of the American people are on the sidelines many don't vote, and many more think voting alone is enough.

So when people say "I give up, I can't trust my government, both parties are in bed with the corporations" you play right into the hands of the oligarchs who want you to not give a crap. This whole "government is the problem" line (bad government is the problem) was started so people would hate government and won't give a crap.

Don't this as a personal attack my friend. You are probably a better guy than I am but I really hate this "my government stinks" but I am gonna ignore it and not do anything about it attitude

If we had done a better job maybe wouldn't have had President's that appointed crack pot Supreme Court justices that allow institutions to dump unlimited sums of money into political campains, and it is not just corportions post Citizens United allows foreign governments like say China to dump money into our elections with zero disclosure.

The American people fell asleep while our government got brought out and now we got the mess we deserve.

 

[connor_in]

We also already know what the message is.
I don't feel like wasting hours listening to politicians politic, be it left or right.

The saddest thing about this whole situation is the majority of people don't trust the government (not left or right, but in general), yet hop on one side or another. The entire political system is broke, and is simply a sham giving career politicians money, elite status, and benefits not afforded to the "small guy" that they are there to represent in the first place.

I'd love to see the current party system abolished. Let those elected run purely on issues, not the issues that the party picks for them. Hell, let people vote the issues directly. It's not like we don't have the technology to make it happen. The number of people voting is much, much smaller than people that have internet capable devices. Hell, make issue education, and voting on those issues mandatory for all citizens... Extreme?,,,, no, simple. Will never happen because it shifts the power away from politicians, and to the people. Just like a flat or fair tax takes power away, and decreases the size of government...

Sorry, now ranting in general.
Need to leave the thread and focus on working so I can retire outside of the US where my hard earned dollars will last longer.

Now now see here my good man! Why in Chicago alone twice as many people living there vote Democrat in every election!

 

[phgreek]

I appreciate your view but I do disagree somewhat. The ladder is there for anyone to climb it. Are there socioeconomic issues that make it harder to climb? Yes. But after 60 years of a government trying to climb the ladder for those that won't, then what makes you or anyone else think another entitlement program, more taxes, or whatever the next big program will be will actually work?. The President's speech tonight will hit on a lot of topics... and his attack on income inequality is simply political rhetoric for class warfare. That's the only way he can garner support for his agenda. Ain't worked for decades... and won't work now.

On a personal level, I have given, and will continue to give, well beyond my means at times to help those less fortunate. And it involves more than simply writing a check to a local charity to feel good about myself. I am very passionate about faith based giving and try to steer the youth of our church in the direction for success, both spiritually and professionally. All too often, I find their lack of drive or success goes back to the breakdown of the family, living in poverty, no emphasis on education, and parents' that don't challenge them to be successful. And sadly, many will not be any more successful than their parents are today. SO, twenty years from now, we will have yet another President, with another set of social engineering, telling us all how it is the fault of the income elite, and offering up yet another failed program. Been there... done that.

...one thing is absolutely shared among all families who break the cycle of poverty...ONE person decided to. I never said the first person achieves monetary success...but what they do is set the tone...make their life's mission creating opportunities for their children...make family more important than themselves....make work important...make education important...make STRIVING important...make being a janitor during the day, and bartender at night a source of pride because it helps their kids get opportunities they didn't have. And when their kids and grand kids emulate that approach...what the hell do you suppose happens? But THE issue that makes that doable is largely having two parent homes...Anybody SERIOUSLY pointing at that...or is that too much like judging people. See, its easier to point to some fictitious demon than to look at your neighbor who left 3 kids and see him as the evil doer...isn't it.

As far as I'm concerned, until people in leadership roles take that seriously, and communities put the proper stigma on abandonment ...we are wasting time dancing around the fringes here...

 

[Guest]

Will read the cliff notes tomorrow.... yawn... so tired of the dems, and growing tired of the pubs.

#less government
#less special interests
#fair/flat tax
#don't trust either
#retiring somewhere other than the US

This is what most Americans think based on recent polling. This year, independents had the pluraility and people are disconnecting from the major political parties.

I don't watch the SOTU anymore because it isn't the speaker's thoughts, it is the party's speech writer. It's posturing and grandstanding.

I just follow the votes and everyday action and make an informed decision about a candidate. Actions, not speeches, are the only thing I care about regardless of party affiliation.

 

[Irish YJ]

Now now see here my good man! Why in Chicago alone twice as many people living there vote Democrat in every election!

The same city known for inventing widespread political corruption

 

[Irish YJ]

I agree with a lot of this especially on voting for issues directly but I feel it is this sort of attitude is why the political system, I think iwill remain broke until 1) we get the money out of politics which is an uphill climb 2) constiuents demand more from their law makers. I wish people would be more invovled which is difficult when we have to work our rear ends off to the point we are too tired to give a crap.

However when people say "oh our system is broke both parties suck blah blah" we are doing exactly what the plutocratic aerostocrisy wants us to do. If people applied more pressure to phone calls, and even something as simple signing virtual petitions it would greatly help the situation. We don't have a democracy anymore because the majority of the American people are on the sidelines many don't vote, and many more think voting alone is enough.

So when people say "I give up, I can't trust my government, both parties are in bed with the corporations" you play right into the hands of the oligarchs who want you to not give a crap. This whole "government is the problem" line (bad government is the problem) was started so people would hate government and won't give a crap.

Don't this as a personal attack my friend. You are probably a better guy than I am but I really hate this "my government stinks" but I am gonna ignore it and not do anything about it attitude

If we had done a better job maybe wouldn't have had President's that appointed crack pot Supreme Court justices that allow institutions to dump unlimited sums of money into political campains, and it is not just corportions post Citizens United allows foreign governments like say China to dump money into our elections with zero disclosure.

The American people fell asleep while our government got brought out and now we got the mess we deserve.

It's very simple to me. I vote, I participate, I educate myself on the issues, and I do not get sucked into the party line. Have I given up? Almost. Why, because I can't see the light at the end of the tunnel anymore for this country's political system.

Call me a pessimist, but sometimes things do reach a point of know return and it's simply futile and a waste of time to worry about it anymore. Will I still vote, absolutely. Do I consider myself a good American, damn straight. That said, this is not the America I grew up loving anymore.

It feels like wanna be socialist state that's afraid to call itself socialist. It feels like a police state which ignores privacy and acts maliciously with no checks and balances all in the name of national security. Sorry, but this is happening. Sometimes you have to cut your losses, and take your ball home. In this case, I plan to take my ball to another country where it's easier to play upon retirement.

PS... I am not against national healthcare, but I am against how it's been actualized under the dems. I am against the welfare state, and all other big government activities.

 

[chicago51]

This is what most Americans think based on recent polling. This year, independents had the pluraility and people are disconnecting from the major political parties.

I don't watch the SOTU anymore because it isn't the speaker's thoughts, it is the party's speech writer. It's posturing and grandstanding.

I just follow the votes and everyday action and make an informed decision about a candidate. Actions, not speeches, are the only thing I care about regardless of party affiliation.

What polling are you looking at?

I think everyone wants lower taxes. But if you ask in a poll do you want cuts to Medicare, SS, etc, or close tax loopholes for the privliedge Americans want to close tax loopholes.

I think everyone would say they want less government regulation. If you ask though if companies can dump toxic chemicals in the local lake or river I think most Americans would disaprove of that.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

He couldn't be closer to the middle than he is now. His signature legislation was a Republican idea. He has caved more than I'd like on just about every budget battle save the Republican government shutdown. Maybe the Rs should begin to show some leadership and join him in the middle where some things could get done. As a party, they are further to the right than they have been in my lifetime.

lol. You're a smart guy, but come on.

Couldn't be closer to the middle? He's running on "free" health care, income inequality, and free birth control.

Signature legislation a Republican idea? From the early 90's? Not one Republican voted for obamacare.

As a party, the R's have never been more moderate. As a party, D's have never been further left. This is not your father's or grandfather's D's, and sure as hell not the party of JFK.

 

[NDFan4Life]

To the original point...

I tend to feel bad for those who vote for either party expecting those in power to actually, “look out for the little guy”… that kind of Washington politician went the way of the Dodo a long time ago IMO. As far as tonight, I won’t be watching, at this point when I hear Obama talk I dismiss just about every word as disingenuous, self-serving, lies… I don’t trust this man at all, and no, he isn’t special in that regard when it comes to DC. Just my feeling towards the TC’s question.

Somebody rep ACamp for me. I've already done it once, he deserves about 1,000 more.

I've been getting sick of the DC politicians for years. They're all self-serving assholes. They could care less about the little guy. The pandering and glad-handing is disgusting. I hope they all rot in hell.

 

[Irish YJ]

Somebody rep ACamp for me. I've already done it once, he deserves about 1,000 more.

I've been getting sick of the DC politicians for years. They're all self-serving assholes. They could care less about the little guy. The pandering and glad-handing is disgusting. I hope they all rot in hell.

done

 

[NDFan4Life]

done

Thank you, kind sir.

 

[chicago51]

A

As a party, the R's have never been more moderate. As a party, D's have never been further left. This is not your father's or grandfather's D's, and sure as hell not the party of JFK.

Is this some kind of joke? Republican Party tried to drive the economy off the cliff by shutting down the government despite the discretionary spending numbers that were less than Paul Ryan's original budget back in 2010.

Kennedy did cut taxes but Medicare was his plan that got finished under Johnson after he died.

Republican Party from Lincoln to Eisenhower did a great deal of infrastructure investing.

Even Jefferson the nation's original conservative President in America with no federal taxes except for import tariffs invested in the Erie Canal which was huge for trade at the time.

Under Teddy Roosevelt the US instituted a federal progressive estate tax on the super rich.

Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency.

Not exactly sure how the Republican Party has somehow moved left of these guys.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

A

Is this some kind of joke? Republican Party tried to drive the economy off the cliff by shutting down the government despite the discretionary spending numbers that were less than Paul Ryan's original budget back in 2010.

Kennedy did cut taxes but Medicare was his plan that got finished under Johnson after he died.

Republican Party from Lincoln to Eisenhower did a great deal of infrastructure investing.

Even Jefferson the nation's original conservative President in America with no federal taxes except for import tariffs invested in the Erie Canal which was huge for trade at the time.

Under Teddy Roosevelt the US instituted a federal progressive estate tax on the super rich.

Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency.

Not exactly sure how the Republican Party has somehow moved left of these guys.

Drive the economy off the cliff? Where are we now? lol. The shutdown was about obamacare, nothing else.

Kennedy's strong beliefs in self-reliance and Catholicism wouldn't be tolerated by today's Democratic party. No way, no how. He'd be a Tea Party candidate. Read about him, things he wrote, things he said.

I can't believe you brought up the Erie Canal lol. How have R's moved left?

Conservatives believe in a Constitutional, limited government. There are dozens of names I could rattle off with an R behind them who might as well be Democrats, but just want to win elections, keep power, and keep serving themselves. There are a number of R politicians I despise. However, the choice of philosophy between conservativism vs modern liberalism is a no brainer. See: Texas vs California.

 

[Irish YJ]

Drive the economy off the cliff? Where are we now? lol. The shutdown was about obamacare, nothing else.

Kennedy's strong beliefs in self-reliance and Catholicism wouldn't be tolerated by today's Democratic party. No way, no how. He'd be a Tea Party candidate. Read about him, things he wrote, things he said.

I can't believe you brought up the Erie Canal lol. How have R's moved left?

Conservatives believe in a Constitutional, limited government. There are dozens of names I could rattle off with an R behind them who might as well be Democrats, but just want to win elections, keep power, and keep serving themselves. There are a number of R politicians I despise. However, the choice of philosophy between conservativism vs modern liberalism is a no brainer. See: Texas vs California.

Couldn't agree more on the cliff and JFK items.

Side note, JFK would have been a Tea Party guy, and would have probably tossed Palin around a mattress or two.

 

[chicago51]

We got 4 Republican Party responses and one Rand Paull free style session! Remember girls and guys it is important to hydrate yourself before giving a lengthy televised speech.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I'm looking forward to the speech. Unfortunately, nothing will get done. The Republicans won't work with him, especially with the mid-term elections coming up.

 

[chicago51]

I'm looking forward to the speech. Unfortunately, nothing will get done. The Republicans won't work with him, especially with the mid-term elections coming up.

I think the speech is more about positioning the Democrat Party on issues they feel are popular with voters like the minimum wage. I don't expect a home run speech but I expect greater focus on key economic issues the Democrats feel they are right on. The speech is more about driving the debate on issues that may help Democrats hold the Senate. I don't expect much to get done either. I think this speech will be more of a punt to improve party field position.

 

[GoIrish41]

lol. You're a smart guy, but come on.

Couldn't be closer to the middle? He's running on "free" health care, income inequality, and free birth control.

Signature legislation a Republican idea? From the early 90's? Not one Republican voted for obamacare.

As a party, the R's have never been more moderate. As a party, D's have never been further left. This is not your father's or grandfather's D's, and sure as hell not the party of JFK.

Your last paragraph is absolute nonsense. Blind unfounded nonsense.

 

[ACamp1900]

Your last paragraph is absolute nonsense. Blind unfounded nonsense.

He must write Obamas speeches....

 

[irishff1014]

Just goes to show how fake the politicians are!!

 

[greyhammer90]

Will read the cliff notes tomorrow.... yawn... so tired of the dems, and growing tired of the pubs.

#less government
#less special interests
#fair/flat tax
#don't trust either
#retiring somewhere other than the US

As close as we are how do we not hang out more?