world

Obama sets progressive agenda in State of the Union speech

55 Comments
By STEVEN R. HURST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

55 Comments
Login to comment

Americans have been hurting, but when we demanded solutions, too often Washington responded with the same stale mindset that led to failed policies like Obamacare.

She continued, "Because even with insurance available to all and the medical inflation rate dropping, it is socialism and thus will damn us all to hell. Also, global warming doesn't exist, the Earth is 6,000 years old, and we need to expropriate land from Nebraskan farmers to export Canadian tar sand oil to Louisiana. Also, Benghazi!"

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Haven't had a chance to watch the speech yet but I'll do so later today, glad to hear he is pushing for progressive stuff, progressive tax reform would be great of course and the cuba stuff is pretty exciting

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Read that many of his proposals are not transfer programs but instead rely on tax deductions. In other words, if you're poor and don't pay taxes, you won't benefit, but if you're lower-middle to middle class, you will. Sounds like a very smart move; the Dems have done poorly with this demographic recently as they feel too much of their hard-earned income is given to the poor. How the Repubs handle this will be interesting to watch.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Behind Obama's latest "progressive activism," hides a brutal yet undeniable truth: this guy is a Lame Duck. Sure, he can talk, talk, talk all he wants (and boy, is he sure good at that!) but did you see the composition of his audience? It's opposition-controlled-and set to stay that way until we see the backside of this particular president!

Nothing he wants implemented will be implemented. NOTHING. So his only feasible "action plan" over the next two years is to:

A.) Talk B.) Morph into "President No" by an increasing reliance on the Veto C). Sign ever more Executive Actions (but hey- good luck with finding funding for those!) and D.) Still more Talk (while moving from being the American President to a Weighty World Figure post-presidency.)

Washington, like much of the country, has already moved on from this rather disappointing stuffed-shirt of a president. His only major accomplishment, Obamacare, will unravel in court challenges to his Administration's illegal funding of federal insurance exchanges in states that elected NOT to implement his program. And who's responsible for that? The Democrats, of course: so smugly certain back when they had the majorities that Red States would all cave in and accept Obamacare rather than lose other Federal funding for playing nice (the Red States said instead, "Nah, we'll skip on those funds, too! By the way, good luck making it work absent fully a third of the country's participation.")

Anyway, the pundits are already trying to decide: who will be next? President Bush, or President Clinton? (Hope and Change, indeed!)

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

Immediate exit poll of 2015 SOTU Address:

very positive - 51%

somewhat positive - 30%

somewhat negative - 10%

very negative - 8%

mixed / no opinion - 1%

2 ( +3 / -1 )

(the Red States said instead, "Nah, we'll skip on those funds, too! By the way, good luck making it work absent fully a third of the country's participation.")

Right - like Kansas, suffering from a major population outflow (and not due to living costs). Reminds me of that album Reagan back in 1961 made eviscerating Social Security: "We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

Aside from "Keep your government hands off of my Social Security!", that was one of the most asinine predictions ever. Some day, people will look back and marvel at the mess American health care was. The ACA is a major step - but not the final one.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Obama dug the country out of the bush depression hole and also expanded healthcare for millions while lower the costs. He is a magician and will be seen by history as a good to great President. A big step up from the loser before him who started wars that failed and brought capitalism to its knees. Those were dire times that no own wants to see repeated, except of course for the republicans

0 ( +5 / -5 )

'She continued, "Because even with insurance available to all and the medical inflation rate dropping, it is socialism and thus will damn us all to hell. Also, global warming doesn't exist, the Earth is 6,000 years old, and we need to expropriate land from Nebraskan farmers to export Canadian tar sand oil to Louisiana. Also, Benghazi!"

You forgot the Lego Movie, the Muppets and Sponge Bob brainwashing the young with socialist, anti-business sentiments.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Obama is so well-spoken and, as much as the Republicans hate it, his list of achievements is growing. Unemployment is down, the economy seems to be picking up, and he wants to move away from the wars started by his predecessor. I enjoyed seeing Boehner clapping as well but with his face saying, 'I wish I were as eloquent as that. How the hell are we ever going to win an election?'

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Well, it's about time.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Obama dug the country out of the bush depression hole and also expanded healthcare for millions while lower the costs.

Yeah, but he never addressed the $18 Trillion debt.

And More nut job liberal mindless talk. He's going to add more debt, more taxes and redistribution. House medians down over 7.5% Add to that: The Internal Revenue Service considers any plan that has an annual deductible of $1,300 or more for individuals or $2,600 for families, a high-deductible plan. Most middle-ground Obamacare plans fall into this category—and according to HealthPocket, this year’s deductibles are even higher than last year.

Indeed, the study found that the average deductible for 2015 Bronze-level policies, the lowest tiered plan, is about $5,181 for individuals--- up from $5,081 last year and about four times the IRS’s benchmark for high-deductible plans. Families who enroll in these plans have deductibles averaging about $10,500 deductibles.

He is a magician and will be seen by history as a good to great President.

Great? Lincoln was great. Obama doesn't even come in at the top 3.

A big step up from the loser before him who started wars that failed and brought capitalism to its knees.

You forgot to thank Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who were instrumental in bringing capitalism to its knees.

Those were dire times that no own wants to see repeated, except of course for the republicans.

As in true blind fashion, libs see what they want to see. He never said anything about taking care of ISIS nor has he addressed the Keystone pipe issue or for 37 months we have about 46 million people on food stamps and most people in the middle income bracket still feel like there is a recession, not mention how he will create Higher paying jobs and how he will cut taxes and decrease spending. No mention of how he will get fugitives Joanne Chesimard, Guillermo Morales, Victor Manuel Gerena, Charlie Hill, Ishmael LaBeet from Cuba or assurances from the Castro brothers that the people of Cuba will be paid in Dollars and Euros.

Once you peel that onion back, you see actually a lot more mold then you had ever anticipated.

Obama is so well-spoken and, as much as the Republicans hate it,

Just as much as the Dems hate when Palin speaks and she even had experience governing, unlike his majesty, but hate is hate. Hey, both sides do it.

his list of achievements is growing.

And so are his hidden failures, at this point, it will be an even washout.

Unemployment is down,

Food stamps and unemployment are up, add to that, people that are retired, took themselves out of the job market, paper hat jobs and once you micro analyze his record, it's a lot worse than it seems.

the economy seems to be picking up, and he wants to move away from the wars started by his predecessor.

Ahh, Afghanistan was Obama's war, pulling out the troops now, anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex can see what happened in Iraq will happen in Afghanistan with the Taliban, did Obama learn his lesson from ISIS? Nope, so here we go again.

I enjoyed seeing Boehner clapping as well but with his face saying, 'I wish I were as eloquent as that. How the hell are we ever going to win an election?'

Actually, I am enjoying Obama go as nuts as he can, the further left he goes, the more stubborn he stays, the year just started, If Obama wants to take the Dems over a cliff, so be it, make it worse for Hilary, that does make me smile. All those tax hikes. Keep it coming. The man has 2 years, with a new Republican congress good luck and so not much will happen. He drew his line and so did congress.

So all the ad hom attacks won't help, but hopefully they can come to a middle ground. There might be yet a silver lining in all of this.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

President Obama's State of the Union a big hit with voters.

81% positive.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/01/21/top1.pdf

Looks like Americans love liberal policies.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This speech could only be considered progressive in a highly regressive US, where income inequality is among the highest in the world and has risen under his watch. Sure, he talked about wages but then asked for fast-track authority for trade agreements that only facilitate the global race-to-the-bottom.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Lol...RIGHT.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The left-pocket ABC news did a soft-ball fact check of Barry's speech.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-union-2015-fact-check-obamas-rhetoric-reality/story?id=28355350

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

CNN managed to find a sample with twice as many Democrats as Republicans, where Gallup measures the US party affiliation as roughly equal.

JTDanMan: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/01/21/top1.pdf

From the link:

20% of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey identified themselves as Republicans, 39% identified themselves as Democrats, and 41% identified themselves as independents.

From Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

2015-Jan-8: Republicans 29%, Democrats 28%, Independents 42%, Republicans (including leaners) 44%, Democrats (including leaners) 43%

1 ( +1 / -0 )

NBC & WSJ poll indicate 56% believe America is heading the wrong direction after Obama's play same game as Gruber of the stupidity of American people in SOTUA. Just wondering if Obama has amnesia about $18 trillion deficit and wanted to raise taxes for more spending with no regard for future generation. He lied about the estate of security with no plan to defeat ISIL. Last speech, he bragged about success in Yemen, for now Yemen and Libya are terrorist heavens! He blamed "drill baby drill" that contributes to oil prices dropping, and without shame he claims the credit for the economy! Obama lives and talks about his own alternate reality which is opposite from actuality. Muslim extremists and Russia create chaos across the globe, and the narcissist one avoided the whole issues as never existed? Class warfare at works

0 ( +3 / -3 )

President Obama's State of the Union a big hit with voters. 81% positive.

Most SOTU speeches are lackluster from any president and any party. They all sound good and they all promise a lot. Implementing them is an entirely different ball game.

Looks like Americans love liberal policies.

Not necessarily and DEMS need to stop inflating their egos like that. The last few times they did that, they lost the House in 2010 when they said, it would never happen and then 2 months ago when they got a beat down again and lost the Senate. So boasting a third time, ok, let's make it a third.

Also remember, Obama is working with an all Republican congress that was elected to stop his radical progressive agendas. The bucket list he made has NO WAY a chance in hell to pass. They just won't do it. He can use his Veto power if he wants and the House can starve it or the Senate can DOA it. Either way, unless Obama (unlike Clinton) meets then in the middle, both will just spin their wheels.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Read that many of his proposals are not transfer programs but instead rely on tax deductions. In other words, if you're poor and don't pay taxes, you won't benefit, but if you're lower-middle to middle class, you will

It doesn't really work like that. What happens is that people will get the deductions, and if they don't pay taxes (due to low income), they will still get it in the form of a tax rebate. That is why so many illegal aliens have filed taxes illegally (using fake social security numbers) so that they can get the Earned Income Tax credits (EIT) and wind up getting millions of dollars, all the while not paying any taxes.

If Obama wanted to go down as a great president, he would just do away with the current tax system, and go with a flat tax based on income. That way, everyone who earns an income pays taxes. No loopholes, tax havens, etc. and everyone just pays a flat portion of their income.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Obama is delusional. It seems he has forgotten that his party was trounced in the last election. The election was all about him and as a result Republicans now have historic margins at the federal, state, and local levels. They should know - they gained all those seats in the last two elections. There really is no such thing as a truly "lame duck" president but Obama is as close as one can get.

What planet does he live on when he thinks that the economy is going gang busters while he has presided over a level of income inequality that the nation hasn't seen since the early 1900's. Median incomes have plummeted under his watch and the rich have only gotten richer at the expense of the middle class. You know, if he can only get another 10 to 12 million people on food stamps or disability he can get the unemployment rate down to 0%? Obama is a joke.

The next few years of Obama vetoing everything Congress does will be fun to watch. Obama will be a one man "party of No". Oh he could be like Clinton and tact to the center - but that's not Obama's style. Therefore, it will be all King Obama and no American democracy. When the president takes an electoral beating as a sign that his ideas are winning it makes him look pathetically out of touch. That is the sad state of the union under Obama.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

If Obama wanted to go down as a great president, he would just do away with the current tax system, and go with a flat tax based on income. That way, everyone who earns an income pays taxes. No loopholes, tax havens, etc. and everyone just pays a flat portion of their income.

That would seem THE most logical and reasonable approach to take, Clinton did it, but then we are talking about equality which is something libs love to talk and brag about they embrace so dearly, but only if it applies to the rich and conservatives.

Obama is delusional. It seems he has forgotten that his party was trounced in the last election. The election was all about him and as a result Republicans now have historic margins at the federal, state, and local levels. They should know - they gained all those seats in the last two elections. There really is no such thing as a truly "lame duck" president but Obama is as close as one can get.

You keep forgetting Dems have VERY short selective memories. But they WILL get the message soon enough. Wolf, as usual, both you and Alpha hit the ball out of the parks, clear and to point.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

"Obama is delusional. It seems he has forgotten that his party was trounced in the last election."

Same with Reagan and a host of other presidents. It never stopped any of them bragging, why should it Obama?

"he has presided over a level of income inequality that the nation hasn't seen since the early 1900's."

This is a global trend. Happening everywhere, Canada, Switerland, Japan. It's the price nations pay for globalization and free-market economic policies. Are you calling for free market policies to be scuttled?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How can Obama claim the SOTU is strong? The US has some of the worst social indicators of all developed countries: wealth and income inequality, crime and incarceration rate, obesity, youth pregnancy, homelessness, etc . (See the book: The Spirit Level).

@wolfpack

Oh he could be like Clinton and tact to the center

Obama started in the centre. If he tacts any more right of that he'll be on the far right by the standard of most developed countries.

@JeffLee

Are you calling for free market policies to be scuttled?

How can a world dominated by a small number of corporations and billionaires (The top 80 greediest people have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion) be called "free market"? This is closer to a conspiracy of policies and laws, such as one in the US that allows the wealthy to pass on their stock holdings to their offspring tax free. How is this a fair playing field on which to compete?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"progressive"??? Surely that is a matter of opinion. some might say that increasing regulation, growibng the size of government and continued meddling in foreign parts are all steps backwards.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama started in the centre.

That's a new one. Obama started from the left right from the start and as time went on his radical policies went further left and now, he's completely lost it. Obama was NEVER center not even close. At least in his second term, Clinton visibly moved to the center, this president is not like that.

If he tacts any more right of that he'll be on the far right by the standard of most developed countries.

ROFL!

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

The rightists above are talking about 'meeting in the middle' while being fully aware that the paradigm has shifted dramatically right. This 'middle' they talk about which they seem to see as a meeting of left and right is farcical. The GOP, now firmly in the jaws of crackpot evangelicals, gun nuts, half-arsed Ayn Rand cultists and tea party lunatics is staking out positions ever further right. This is a pity as there are some decent people in there. The US is not alone in this. I remember a politician, I think it was in Australia, was asked why he had moved from the supposed party of the right to the supposed party of the left and replied that it wasn't a question of him moving, he was in the same place he'd always been while the scenery had shifted around him. The political paradigm does shift but to a large degree you need to stand your ground and I tend to admire politicians who do this.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"Obama started in the centre. If he tacts any more right of that he'll be on the far right by the standard of most developed countries."

"Tacks" people! But as usual Warispeace is spot on. Obama was the quintessential neoliberal when it mattered. His healthcare policy crafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation and put into practice by the last GOP standard bearer. A policy that mandates (without price controls) that you buy a product from vast, evil corporations whose stock (quelle surprise) boomed when it was passed. As opposed to authentic liberal policy like social security. The likes of FDR or LBJ haven't had any power in the Democratic party since before Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin started doing the bidding of corporate interests.

Only in a discursive fugue state would one call the man a liberal. But since Fox News and even the NYT largely representing establishment interests, it's no wonder folks are confused about reality. Propaganda has that effect. Hillary would be more of the same. Warren would be a step in the right direction--if only HRC would do the right thing and step aside (after all she can continue giving 200,000$ speeches to Goldman Sachs).

In the end, Obama is talking like a liberal now b/c he's concerned with his legacy. When he had dem majorities in congress, we saw his true colors. He squandered a once in a generation chance to turn the clock back on nearly 30 yrs. of Reaganomics.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The rightists above are talking about 'meeting in the middle' while being fully aware that the paradigm has shifted dramatically right. This 'middle' they talk about which they seem to see as a meeting of left and right is farcical.

You are joking, right? I know you don't believe that. Lol

The GOP, now firmly in the jaws of crackpot evangelicals, gun nuts, half-arsed Ayn Rand cultists and tea party lunatics is staking out positions ever further right.

So what about Reid, he's a gun owner and a Mormon or did that slip your mind? Chuck Shummer as well And here are some Dems that hold stock in gun companies. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/01/22/hypocrisy-101-democrats-vilify-guns-but-own-stock-in-gun-companies/ Guess that means, they are also in the Democratic liberal lunatics hands as well.

This is a pity as there are some decent people in there. The US is not alone in this. I remember a politician, I think it was in Australia, was asked why he had moved from the supposed party of the right to the supposed party of the left and replied that it wasn't a question of him moving, he was in the same place he'd always been while the scenery had shifted around him. The political paradigm does shift but to a large degree you need to stand your ground and I tend to admire politicians who do this.

Then you should admire the US GOP for standing their ground as well. Obama stands his and they stand theirs, gotta respect that.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@Bass

'You are joking, right? I know you don't believe that. Lol'

That doesn't really pass as a reply, unless one of my original statements was 'the planet is 6,000 years old', 'being able to see Russia on a clear day from Alaska qualifies one in the area of foreign policy' or 'Jesus wrote the constitution'.

I agree it's a tragedy that millions of Americans are faced with a choice between these two parties on the issue of guns. One has an erotic obsession with them while the other hasn't got the balls to do anything about them while tens of thousands are killed by firearms every year.

'Then you should admire the US GOP for standing their ground as well. Obama stands his and they stand theirs, gotta respect that.'

I don't know if they taught reading in journalism school but I did say:

'the GOP, now firmly in the jaws of crackpot evangelicals, gun nuts, half-arsed Ayn Rand cultists and tea party lunatics is staking out positions ever further right'

Hence, I don't see the GOP as 'standing their ground'.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

JeffLee: This is a global trend. Happening everywhere, Canada, Switerland, Japan. It's the price nations pay for globalization and free-market economic policies.

I was just reading an article about a company wanting to use boats with offices that you could park in international waters close to Silicon Valley. That way you could do business there without a US visa. They're basically cutting out the government altogether. I suppose at that point it won't matter if we elect a Democrat or Republican.

Wolfpack: Obama is delusional. It seems he has forgotten that his party was trounced in the last election. The election was all about him and as a result Republicans now have historic margins at the federal, state, and local levels.

Nah. Obama's approval numbers have always been and still are higher than Congressional Republicans, even the ones released this week, so I don't know how you support the claim that the election was about him. More people trust him to solve the major problems than they trust Republicans.

Historically, a President during this part of an 8-year cycle has always lost seats, and there were plenty more blue seats up for grabs than red. You also have the issue of Democrats voting more in the Presidential elections than in others. Those two things probably had a lot more to do with the results that Republicans would care to acknowledge.

The next few years of Obama vetoing everything Congress does will be fun to watch. Obama will be a one man "party of No"

This is where I get a bit confused. Are you not aware that the Republicans own the image of "the party of No"? Or do you know it but you're just trying to rewrite the narrative? I mean, you must have heard something about it.

The Republican Party's problem is dysfunction, and we're all kind of screwed until you guys get your act together. We had bipartisan immigration pass the Senate and had enough votes to pass the House but Beohner refused to call a vote because of party politics. Stuff like that has nothing to do with Obama.

I'm seeing the articles about potential GOP presidential candidates and I just can't believe it. Rick Perry? Mike Huckabee? Ted Cruz? Bobby Jindall? You've got to be kidding me. Throw Mitt up there again and ask Ron Paul to take a couple of steps to the center. Don't let the crazies kill the decent people; at least give them a chance to present some policy that might attract the center.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

That doesn't really pass as a reply, unless one of my original statements was 'the planet is 6,000 years old', 'being able to see Russia on a clear day from Alaska qualifies one in the area of foreign policy' or 'Jesus wrote the constitution'.

It wasn't supposed to be an answer, it was a facial reaction and disbelief that you actually believe what you just said. Your reaching pretty far now. Lol But anyway, what about those religious and radical Dems that love their guns, support the gun industry and the opposite the tea party the ueber-liberal progressives and the Warren's and Saunders of the left. That's acceptable to you, right?

I agree it's a tragedy that millions of Americans are faced with a choice between these two parties on the issue of guns. One has an erotic obsession with them while the other hasn't got the balls to do anything about them while tens of thousands are killed by firearms every year.

And they (the Democratic party) never will.

I don't know if they taught reading in journalism school but I did say:

Ok, so instead of answering, it's better to use ad hom attacks, gotcha and I am not in the least surprised.

Hence, I don't see the GOP as 'standing their ground'.

That's what you refuse to see, that's what you really meant to say. But (sigh) I guess it has to be a third time before you guys finally get it. We have 3 branches of government, all equal to each other and Obama can use his veto power all he wants, the GOP congress don't have to pass anything he puts on their desks, therefore, they are standing their ground.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

bass: it was a facial reaction and disbelief that you actually believe what you just said. Your reaching pretty far now.

Makes sense now. I read an article where Ted Cruz was praising Reagan and I thought it was strange since we all know Reagan would be far too moderate to be elected in today's Republican party. Apparently the Republican bubble is unaware of this.

bass: the GOP congress don't have to pass anything he puts on their desks, therefore, they are standing their ground.

So the Republicans are standing ground, and their position on Obama is that he won't compromise.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Bass If you read what I meant by 'standing your ground', you'd see I meant ideology, not stubbornly blocking everything. Look at how far US politics has shifted right from Reagan onwards. I'm a UK citizen and the same could be said of UK politics. It is often said that Thatcher's greatest achievement was Tony Blair. Have you ever stopped to look at say, the environmental policies and taxation policies of Richard Nixon? A candidate with these policies would be run out of the GOP with torches and pitchforks nowadays. The argument is clear if you'd care to look at the trends every sober analyst has identified and it is showing no signs of slowing down.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

the GOP congress don't have to pass anything he puts on their desks

And a clear majority of Americans will hate the GOP for it. Most of Obama's proposals have overwhelming support. People want to see the super rich paying more in taxes. If you're making over $500,000 in investment income, why should you pay less tax than a person making less than half of that for actually working for a living? If the Republicans say no to that -- out of nothing but so-called principle -- they're going to pay for it in 2016.

I think Obama has clear political motives for what he's proposing, but at least the proposals are better than what the GOP has. As far as I'm concerned, American politics (especially economic policy) has moved way too far to the right, and Obama is part of that game. Anyone who would call Obama far left or socialist simply doesn't understand history or global trends.

Clinton did it

Sorry to break it to you again, but Clinton never implemented a flat tax. He talked about it (for people making over $100,000 at the time), but it never went anywhere. Maybe you weren't in journalism yet in those years.

The man has 2 years

And then bass will start his 90-day hiatus from posting on JT.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The GOP, now firmly in the jaws of crackpot evangelicals, gun nuts, half-arsed Ayn Rand cultists and tea party lunatics is staking out positions ever further right. This is a pity as there are some decent people in there.

@ Jimizo: When was the last time any of the members of that group marched and protested that something should be shut down, or occupying public streets to close off business, or killed anyone for their so called "far right" beliefs.

I think you are missing the point on what the USA is really about. Like it or not, the USA is a center right nation. Case in point, my home state (Arkansas) in the 2014 midterm elections has put all of its Congressional delegation (Congress/Senate) into the GOP, the first time since Reconstruction, and during that same election it also elected a GOP governor. You think that things would be falling apart in your world view yet in that same election the voters of Arkansas also voted to raise the minimum wage for the state. So, if we follow your usual leftist line of thinking, that sort of "progressive thinking" by the good people of Arkansas should not be able to occur since they tend to vote GOP.

Also, since the state house in that last election gained a GOP majority, a GOP state senator has introduced legislation to separate Gen. Robert E. Lee day from the MLK holiday, and that was backed by Dems. For those who don't know, Arkansas is one of 3 states that celebrates Gen Robert E. Lee day on the same day as the MLK holiday. The reason why he wanted to separate the two days is because Robert E. Lee (General of the Confederacy during the Civil War for those who don't know it) represents everything that MLK stood against, and it dishonors MLK with having Lee celebrated on a day when we should be celebrating our advancement of racial progress. But funny thing, since MLK day was made an official holiday, the state legislature in AR has continued to keep the Robert E. Lee Day in conjunction. For those who don't know, Bill Clinton was the governor of the state then and the great "liberal leader" back then didn't do anything to change the Lee holiday, nor did any of those on the far left barking about the so called GOP and their war on minorities and women.

To sum it up, if you only just spout talking points that they want you to hear and not do any research and see what is actually happening, people like you will continued to be fooled while the world is passing you by.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlphaApe: Also, since the state house in that last election gained a GOP majority, a GOP state senator has introduced legislation to separate Gen. Robert E. Lee day from the MLK holiday, and that was backed by Dems. For those who don't know, Arkansas is one of 3 states that celebrates Gen Robert E. Lee day on the same day as the MLK holiday. The reason why he wanted to separate the two days is because Robert E. Lee (General of the Confederacy during the Civil War for those who don't know it) represents everything that MLK stood against, and it dishonors MLK with having Lee celebrated on a day when we should be celebrating our advancement of racial progress. But funny thing, since MLK day was made an official holiday, the state legislature in AR has continued to keep the Robert E. Lee Day in conjunction.

And Republicans also threatened to default on our national debt. But I'm glad the Robert E Lee thing got sorted out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Makes sense now. I read an article where Ted Cruz was praising Reagan and I thought it was strange since we all know Reagan would be far too moderate to be elected in today's Republican party. Apparently the Republican bubble is unaware of this.

Uh, yeah, as if JFK would be too Conservative by liberal standards today for ANY Dem.

So the Republicans are standing ground, and their position on Obama is that he won't compromise.

Which neither side will.

@plastic

And a clear majority of Americans will hate the GOP for it.

Not the ones that elected them to office and I am NOT talking about Dream States of CA, NY, DC, the elite of the elite. I'm talking about the average working class American.

Most of Obama's proposals have overwhelming support.

Depends on who you ask. For many of the poor, the people in the lower income bracket on average, Yes. But a big portion of the middle class, the upper class, the very affluent that drive the country financially, No.

People want to see the super rich paying more in taxes.

I get so GD tired of hearing that. I make an over 6 digit salary a year. I already pay more, a lot more of my share in taxes. 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes, how is that fair? It's NOT! And if Obama wants to punish success and increase taxes and tax capitol gains tax, good luck with trying to build up the economy and create jobs it will never happen. I have said this a million times, go to California and see exactly what full blown liberal policies and over taxation will do. There is a reason thousands of people are leaving each month and are being replaced by 3rd world immigrants and illegals and it shows. And where I have a house in Orange County, heavily conservative house prices are through the roof and one reason is to keep the community clean and free from crime. Drive North 1 hour towards L.A. County and you will be amazed by the difference and quality of life.

If you're making over $500,000 in investment income, why should you pay less tax than a person making less than half of that for actually working for a living?

So then why not start and implement a flat rate tax? Everyone pays percentage-wise tax equal amount according to their pay scale. Personally, I work hard for my money and Obama is a sucker if he thinks a lot of hardworking Americans are just going to give it to someone because they didn't try hard or they just want some thing for FREE. I have the ability to take my money and go somewhere that Obama can never get his greedy mitts on it!

If the Republicans say no to that -- out of nothing but so-called principle -- they're going to pay for it in 2016.

I doubt it, not this time. I know the Dems have a very short and selective memory and forgot just two months ago that they got a serious beat down, knock out whoopin' and as in the anointed ones own words about elections as he said to John McCain: Elections have consequences, you lost and I won. That analogy applies equally to the opposite side as well. The Dems lost and the GOP took over, OVERWHELMINGLY, the people spoke and you can think what you want, most Dems do, but the more Obama is combative, stubborn and unwilling to compromise and put some break on his radical policies, it's lights out for the Dems in 2016.

I think Obama has clear political motives for what he's proposing, but at least the proposals are better than what the GOP has.

Sorry, not scoring any points. The GOP has been NOT even a month on the job, what are you expecting? Come on now? But again, The GOP will hold ground as will Obama. The best thing about all of this is that the congress now can keep writing and tweaking different legislatures to fit any agenda and at anytime to the point where he and the Dems sooner or later will have to come to some mutual agreement. The ball is in his court, he is working with fewer Democrats since the 1920's.

As far as I'm concerned, American politics (especially economic policy) has moved way too far to the right, and Obama is part of that game.

Gosh! I almost choked coughing reading that. All I can say is WOW! And I guess you believe Carter was a damn good president as well.

Anyone who would call Obama far left or socialist simply doesn't understand history or global trends.

Or if they just want to cherry pick and selectively pick out the parts and talking points that feeds their narrative.

Sorry to break it to you again, but Clinton never implemented a flat tax. He talked about it (for people making over $100,000 at the time), but it never went anywhere. Maybe you weren't in journalism yet in those years.

Which is what I meant to say, the idea was good and would have worked.

The man has 2 years

Exactly 656 days to go!

And then bass will start his 90-day hiatus from posting on JT.

Or more than likely you and seeing that in typical liberal fashion, they never learn. But then again, libs were wrong twice in the last 6 years, so....be careful what you hope for.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Bass

'Uh, yeah, as if JFK would be too Conservative by liberal standards today for ANY Dem.'

I'm not sure what that sentence means but if you are trying to say the democrats have shifted left, let's stick with the subject you've been talking about - taxation. It has been pointed out to you that any sane and sober point of view looking at history must conclude that the taxation policies of both parties have shifted to the right. As a well-informed journalist with a knowledge of such matters, I'm sure you you won't need a google search to tell us what the higher earners were paying in tax under Kennedy/Johnson compared with Obama and what the higher earners were paying under Nixon compared with Bush jr. More revealingly, take a look at what the higher earners were paying under Nixon compared with Obama. Superlib, Plasticmonkey and myself tried to point out historical trends but it's obviously something which doesn't suit your narrative.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm not sure what that sentence means but if you are trying to say the democrats have shifted left, let's stick with the subject you've been talking about - taxation.

You brought Reagan into the debate, I was just making a liberal comparison, if you want to stick to the subject, please take into consideration, you will get a rebuttal.

It has been pointed out to you that any sane and sober point of view looking at history must conclude that the taxation policies of both parties have shifted to the right.

Spending, taxing the capitol gains tax, wanting to give college students free tuition, corporate tax, being the highest in the US, these are all Right policies?

As a well-informed journalist with a knowledge of such matters, I'm sure you you won't need a google search to tell us what the higher earners were paying in tax under Kennedy/Johnson compared with Obama and what the higher earners were paying under Nixon compared with Bush jr.

And I guess, you have never used Google in your life to validate your points, you'd be the first.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/03/how-median-incomes-have-changed-in-the-richest-and-poorest-states-in-8-charts/

Personally for me, Obama has been VERY good financially, but that's about it. But he's not going to get my money, that's for sure.

More revealingly, take a look at what the higher earners were paying under Nixon compared with Obama. Superlib, Plasticmonkey and myself tried to point out historical trends but it's obviously something which doesn't suit your narrative.

Is that what you think??? Come on, you can do better? So now you want to compare all of a sudden the tax rates of the late 60s/70s to the higher inflated rates of 2015? The problem with you 3 is that, it sickens you to the core that your president now is in a sea of GOP Piranhas and he just might not get all his agenda through and instead of just facing the truth and acknowledging that Obama indeed has to actually for the first time in 6 years sit down and talk, NOT brush off, talk to his Republican counterparts, whereas before, Reid insulated him from that and not allowing anything the GOP proposed to even come to a hearing or DOA not anymore. No matter the ad hom attacks you libs love to try and dish out, it's not going to change the fact, Obama is surrounded and the only that he can do is meet Boehner and the rest somewhere in the middle, if not, so be it. Wolf, Bgood, Alpha and I have been saying this for some time now, but as they say, you can lead the horse to the water, but making that stud drink is a whole different basket of apples.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Bass Stop avoiding the question. I can't match your polish and literary elegance as a professional journalist but I'm reasonable at maths. I'm putting forward the fact that the better off paid a larger percentage under Nixon than they now do under the socialist who believes in wealth redistribution currently sitting in the whitehouse. Numbers?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not avoiding the question, I just don't think its really a relevant or debatable topic crunching numbers and inflation during the Nixon era and during Obama's era. Income redistribution is absolutely not the way to go. It stifles growth and that is NOT what America is all about, in Europe, yes, but to see the country and how median household incomes have dropped and that people are more on welfare and unemployment benefits are through the roof it bothers me. I don't want America to become like Europe. If I want to see Europe, I will go. I am just sick and tired of talking to people that have had it with this guy wanting to take other peoples money.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

bass4funk: Personally for me, Obama has been VERY good financially

Right. We keep telling you that Obama is the man for high-income job creating business owners such as yourself....but....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I just don't think its really a relevant or debatable topic crunching numbers and inflation during the Nixon era and during Obama's era.

Yeah, who needs historical perspective or facts when you've got a good story. The very foundation of responsible journalism.

he's not going to get my money, that's for sure.

What a childish statement. Do you consider tax dodging an act of patriotism? Besides, I doubt very much that your taxes will go up. I strongly suspect that, along with your journalistic credentials, your 'over six digit salary' is being wildly inflated. Unless you're talking about yen.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Right. We keep telling you that Obama is the man for high-income job creating business owners such as yourself....but....

Well, more like he got the help he needed from his Republican governors like Perry and Kasich. Hey, one hand washes the other, they're still waiting for the Thank you call. But knowing this president, he doesn't seem to have that gravitas or the etiquette to do so.

Yeah, who needs historical perspective or facts when you've got a good story.

I ask myself that very question and yet, Dems seem to wallow in fantasy theoretical that usually never come to fruition, say high tech industry jobs, but hey....

The very foundation of responsible journalism.

How many times do I have to tell you. I don't work for JT. Here, I'm a civilian and I'm just expressing my opinions and some fact base, thats all. You are taking this all too serious. Relax.

What a childish statement. Do you consider tax dodging an act of patriotism?

No, I consider what Obama is doing is pure thuggish thievery of robbing the rich to give to the poor, pure and simple. I can afford to take my money and put it somewhere so that this guy can't get to it, I have that right. I worked very, very hard in my career, did very well in TV and I'm not going to let this guy take it all, I pay more then my fair share. That's the reason why I left California, because it was a tax take all nightmare!

Besides, I doubt very much that your taxes will go up.

That's beside the point.

I strongly suspect that, along with your journalistic credentials, your 'over six digit salary' is being wildly inflated. Unless you're talking about yen

No, not inflated and not talking about Yen. We are talking about USD. Also whether you believe what I make or not is irrelevant, you don't know me, it matters not, I'm just telling you, I have made a lot of money in my life, is that a crime? Or is it a crime in wanting to keep as much as I can? I have no reason to lie about it. I was just expressing my feelings as a U.S. tax payer, that's all. I think Obama wants to punish success and because of his lack and inability and understanding of the economy, he thinks the best way to growth and prosperity is restoritive Justice. I have every right to keep my earnings that I've earned through my adult career. We are just having a conversation, no need to jab and use Ad Homs it just deflates your argument.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

'I am just sick and tired of talking to people that have had it with this guy wanting to take other peoples money.'

Well, after checking the tax rates on higher earners set by previous administrations, you can offer them the consolation that they aren't living in the days of rabid communist leaders who took much larger percentages of other people's money like Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. You could even go further back and tell them that FDR actually considered a wage cap on high earners. After doing this, you could quote that well-known radical socialist European politician, Harold MacMillan, who said 'You've never had it so good'.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Well, after checking the tax rates on higher earners set by previous administrations, you can offer them the consolation that they aren't living in the days of rabid communist leaders who took much larger percentages of other people's money like Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter.

Not going there and not relevant to our time and and inflation.

You could even go further back and tell them that FDR actually considered a wage cap on high earners. After doing this, you could quote that well-known radical socialist European politician, Harold MacMillan, who said 'You've never had it so good'.

Actually, I had it better under Bush, but under Obama my portfolio is doing very well, too bad, can't say the same for the middleclass.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

under Obama my portfolio is doing very well, too bad, can't say the same for the middleclass.

An internet connection in your Learjet. We're impressed!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

bass

what Obama is doing is pure thuggish thievery of robbing the rich to give to the poor, pure and simple.

Do you mean that this fabled Robin Hood of our childhood was a bad man? That the rich deserve what they get? That the poor deserve what they get? How is it that such a fable has retained its allure? Could it be that at heart decent human beings believe in social justice, and not feudalism?

I just don't think its really a relevant or debatable topic crunching numbers and inflation during the Nixon era and during Obama's era.

Inflation is not relevant to tax rates. Think about it for a minute.

I think Obama wants to punish success

But you've said that you and your six digit salary have done well under Obama. How's that punishment working for you? Have you created lots of high paying jobs?

I don't work for JT. Here, I'm a civilian and I'm just expressing my opinions and some fact base

So your journalistic integrity or thinking skills don't carry over into your 'civilian' life. I'd like to see or read your journalism someday. I bet it's top notch. That's not an ad hominem attack. It's just that I really don't believe you are a journalist, and you should be ashamed to have been saying that you are one. It's a disgrace to the profession.

What is a fact base?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

An internet connection in your Learjet. We're impressed!

Hey, don't hate the messenger, hate the message. But thank you anyway.

Do you mean that this fabled Robin Hood of our childhood was a bad man?

My father never liked the story, I was always told he was criminal.

That the rich deserve what they get? That the poor deserve what they get? How is it that such a fable has retained its allure? Could it be that at heart decent human beings believe in social justice, and not feudalism?

I firmly believe that you can be anything you want and if you can't get there, you should get LIMITED support to get you off your feet and nothing longterm...EVER.

But you've said that you and your six digit salary have done well under Obama. How's that punishment working for you? Have you created lots of high paying jobs?

I work part time for a semi-big corporation doing Freelance work and what I do in my private life and how I earn money is my business, but I do appreciate the concern.

So your journalistic integrity or thinking skills don't carry over into your 'civilian' life.

They do.

I'd like to see or read your journalism someday. I bet it's top notch.

It is as a matter of fact.

That's not an ad hominem attack.

Yes, you are making it personal and you shouldn't, I don't. Just relax, debate, we agree or disagree and leave it at that.

It's just that I really don't believe you are a journalist, and you should be ashamed to have been saying that you are one. It's a disgrace to the profession.

Plastic, you believe what you want as that is your right, it's no sweat off my back. As I said, my job is not to convince you of anything as long as I, my family and friends and the people that are relevant in my life know, then that is good enough for me.

That's a fact.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

bass4funk,

Thanks for your balanced analysis of the State of the Union speech. It demonstrates levels of critical thinking, objectivity and selflessness only a Pulitzer-deserving journalist would be capable of.

We are so privileged to share these same golden threads with you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Thanks for your balanced analysis of the State of the Union speech.

Please, don't thank me, I was more than happy to give my input on the anointed ones painful and empty hallowed out speech.

It demonstrates levels of critical thinking, objectivity and selflessness only a Pulitzer-deserving journalist would be capable of.

You flatter me, but one day I hope.

We are so privileged to share these same golden threads with you.

As you should and like wise, JT wouldn't be the same without you guys. Kudos.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@warispeace

Obama started in the centre. If he tacts any more right of that he'll be on the far right by the standard of most developed countries.

Thanks for the laugh. That's hilarious!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

'Actually, I had it better under Bush, but under Obama my portfolio is doing very well, too bad, can't say the same for the middleclass.'

So, we are agreed. Historical perspective is important. That took a while but we got there in the end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, we are agreed. Historical perspective is important. That took a while but we got there in the end.

No, we didn't agree, I never said that, please don't put words in my mouth and be disingenuous. I am just saying for people like me, Obama has been good, very good, but for lower and middle America, quite the opposite.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The next few years of Obama vetoing everything Congress does will be fun to watch. Obama will be a one man "party of No". Oh he could be like Clinton and tact to the center - but that's not Obama's style.

Staggering ignorance, anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to this would know Obama has bent over backwards over and over to give republicans practically everything they want. If you don't agree please tell me what democrats would have gained from the grand bargin he pushed for (fortunately unsuccessfully). The Obama we've seen recently is totally a breath of fresh air because he's doing and pushing for some things democrats want for a change and not just acting like a moderate republican. People criticizing Obama for not being centrist enough just make themselves look like fools to anyone who is has paid attention throughout his presidency

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites