What is he gonna say that he hasn't said already tonight or couldn't have been covered in his weekly address or mid-morning press conference? Just seems like more unneeded network TV time.

Will this interrupt the football game tonight?

after watching about the last 30 minutes of it....there are times he didn't sound like a complete idiot.

Given the context of the speech, I found it interesting how the left side of the chamber wasn't standing up. If politics were a game, I would have fielded a strategy that looked more engaged.

well compared to that collection of titans in last night's debate...

Spend more, raise taxes... it could be a GOP campaign commercial

Spend more, raise taxes... it could be a GOP campaign commercial

 

 

Tax cuts make up 50% of the cost...

Speaking is his strength.

 

Have you ever heard him try to speak without a teleprompter?

Tax cuts really aren't that cool if they aren't coupled with spending cuts. Despite what Obama says, nothing he is proposing is "paid for." It's all just going to be tacked onto the deficit.

 

 

I wasn't arguing the merits of it, just the facts. Whether it will work or not is a whole seperate issue, but what EW said was not factually accurate.

It doesn't matter anyway. The economy is doomed. Technology is killing it. Technology is taking more and more jobs from people. Case and point: The post office is going out of business soon because its being made obsolete by email and other digital communication. That'll be 600,000 more people unemployed. Yep we're doomed.

 

In the Star Trek universe, there's is no economy on Earth(or at least no money) in the future. That's the only hope we have. I don't know how that would be possible though. At least not without some major leap in Human evolution.

It doesn't matter anyway. The economy is doomed. Technology is killing it. Technology is taking more and more jobs from people. Case and point: The post office is going out of business soon because its being made obsolete by email and other digital communication. That'll be 600,000 more people unemployed. Yep we're doomed.

 

In the Star Trek universe, there's is no economy on Earth(or at least no money) in the future. That's the only hope we have. I don't know how that would be possible though. At least not without some major leap in Human evolution.

 

You, sir, are utterly incoherent.

Speaking is his strength.

 

Have you ever heard him try to speak without a teleprompter?

 

Really, what's with the teleprompter obsession? Every major figurehead uses one when making speeches. I guess Obama gets a bad rap for using one because he's the best at it?

Speaking is his strength.

 

Have you ever heard him try to speak without a teleprompter?

 

Really, what's with the teleprompter obsession? Every major figurehead uses one when making speeches. I guess Obama gets a bad rap for using one because he's the best at it?

 

He says "um" sometimes when he's not using a teleprompter.

 

It's really stupid, but it was totally predictable that Orlando Rays would go to that.

Tax cuts really aren't that cool if they aren't coupled with spending cuts. Despite what Obama says, nothing he is proposing is "paid for." It's all just going to be tacked onto the deficit.

 

 

I wasn't arguing the merits of it, just the facts. Whether it will work or not is a whole seperate issue, but what EW said was not factually accurate.

 

 

Alas, like everything else from the President - there is no actual plan. At most there is a verbal proposal - but the man puts nothing down on paper and then claims that nothing gets done when Congress "doesn't pass it". Under our system bills need to be written to be voted upon.

 

If one were to consider regulation ridden tax credits targeted towards mythical benefits to be tax cuts, then perhaps he has some in there. Otherwise, it spending increases married to tax increases - a classic modern Democratic-party plan.

Alas, like everything else from the President - there is no actual plan. At most there is a verbal proposal - but the man puts nothing down on paper and then claims that nothing gets done when Congress "doesn't pass it". Under our system bills need to be written to be voted upon.

 

 

So there will be no bill?

Penguino's got it. Several times in the past 2.5 years that the President has demanded passage of phantom legislation.

I think you guys are taking rhetorical flourishes a little too seriously.

The health care bill was passed with "little scrutiny?"

Half of the major points of the health care reform law were originally Republican ideas championed by people like Bob Dole in the early 90's and then Governor Romney in Mass. Insurance exchanges? Check. Health care mandates? Check. I could go on.

 

Most of you are against this stuff just because you voted for the other guy. Same thing applies to Republicans in Congress and running for President.

I think you guys are taking rhetorical flourishes a little too seriously.

 

 

No, he is calling for urgent action so that "blank check" bills will pass. Laws that make sweeping reforms to major portions of our economy and society without having to debate their merits during the legislative process. The bills themselves are not supplied in document form until support is rounded up, and thus nobody other than the authors have any concepts of what the laws entail.

 

It is the worst kind of chicanery, and supporting such measures before they are revealed is an abdication of the Legislature's duties.

Delete.

Let me add - I wouldn't like that kind of behavior out of Republicans either. It is the abandonment of even the pretense of the Constitutional process that disgusts me.

I think you are missing the point.

 

Those major components (mandates, exchanges, etc) were propped up by pages and pages of new rules and regulations that were not fully understood until well after the bill was passed. It is clear that Congress did not have adequate time to read, understand, and debate the legislation before passing it. And the American people did not have enough time to understand it. It's ridiculous to assume that the language of these smaller components (over 1000 pages) conformed neatly with other health care proposals 15 years ago (during the Clinton years) and what exists in Massachusetts state law. Yeah, people got the overall gist of the legislation, but that doesn't mean that everything in it was understood. It really baffles me when liberals attempt to defend the "transparency" behind this bill's passage, especially since many of them were repulsed by how the GOP passed the Patriot Act. People on this very board were saying that the Obama admin would be among the most transparent in history because it would make use of CSPAN to televise negotiations. The final health care negotiations were conducted behind closed doors.

 

I did not vote for "the other guy," but one can just as easily account for your defense of the the way this bill was passed by saying you voted for "this guy." If the GOP tried to do the very same thing, I'm certain there would be liberal outrage. That's the absurdity in all of this.

 

 

I am sorry to inform you that if you wanted to make sure you understood every little detail of a large piece of legislation before you actually voted on it nothing would ever get done. Even the most simple law has arcane regulatory implications that Congress does not fully understand. This is how the process works. In practice we will find out what's not working and make the necessary changes as time goes on.

 

And this happens in the, GASP!, PRIVATE sector, too. Companies adopt policies, procedures, etc., that the people that adopt them do not fully understand, both in terms of the actual steps and unintended consequences. This is why companies underperform, get in trouble with the law, get sued, and go bankrupt. Obviously you want top notch performance, but not getting it perfect from the get go is not an excuse for inaction. That's life.

 

Penguino, your approach would produce no action whatsoever. Sounds like something an academic or someone not versed in the real world would say. (No offense).

I am sorry to inform you that if you wanted to make sure you understood every little detail of a large piece of legislation before you actually voted on it nothing would ever get done.

 

 

There is a huge difference between unintended consequences (one of the reasons government shouldn't interfere unless it is vital) and INTENDED consequences that the folks that voted on the bill are ignorant about. The former is the side effect of government meddling and the latter is an abdication of responsibility - at the very least it is misfeasance.