|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I'm about 3/4 of the way through Jindal's speech. I'm trying to find what's so wrong or crazy with it that made it so "infamous." Am I just too radically conservative? X-D
|
On February 13 2013 13:18 cLAN.Anax wrote:
I'm about 3/4 of the way through Jindal's speech. I'm trying to find what's so wrong or crazy with it that made it so "infamous." Am I just too radically conservative? X-D
It was tremendously boring. His delivery is terrible.
Or at least that's how I see it. At least Rubio sounded good. But it is pretty much the same speech, now that I think about it.
|
Oh, okay, haha! I didn't think it was that soporific, but, eh. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 13 2013 13:23 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Oh, okay, haha! I didn't think it was that soporific, but, eh. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It seemed especially bad at the time because it was following Obama's.
Rebuttals to SOTU addresses are almost always perceived as bad or lackluster, and it's really only natural because the audience is tired and it's usually impossible to match the energy of the President in that room.
Clinton is the only person who's ever given a rebuttal and gone on to win the Presidency, and it was 7 years later. For everyone else, it dooms them a bit. Rubio's biggest mistake was accepting the job in the first place. Yeah, it puts you on the national spotlight but almost never in a good way, Republican or Democrat.
|
On February 13 2013 13:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 13:23 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Oh, okay, haha! I didn't think it was that soporific, but, eh. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It seemed especially bad at the time because it was following Obama's. Rebuttals to SOTU addresses are almost always perceived as bad or lackluster, and it's really only natural because the audience is tired and it's usually impossible to match the energy of the President in that room. Clinton is the only person who's ever given a rebuttal and gone on to win the Presidency, and it was 7 years later. For everyone else, it dooms them a bit.
No he's referring to Jindal's speech, which was before the SOTU.
|
On February 13 2013 13:20 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 13:18 cLAN.Anax wrote:
I'm about 3/4 of the way through Jindal's speech. I'm trying to find what's so wrong or crazy with it that made it so "infamous." Am I just too radically conservative? X-D It was tremendously boring. His delivery is terrible. Or at least that's how I see it. At least Rubio sounded good. But it is pretty much the same speech, now that I think about it.
Also he dumbed it down to a point where it felt like it was insulting to the average listener. It felt like the kind of speech you give a child when trying to inspire him about his country and how great it can be.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 13 2013 13:30 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 13:29 Jibba wrote:On February 13 2013 13:23 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Oh, okay, haha! I didn't think it was that soporific, but, eh. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It seemed especially bad at the time because it was following Obama's. Rebuttals to SOTU addresses are almost always perceived as bad or lackluster, and it's really only natural because the audience is tired and it's usually impossible to match the energy of the President in that room. Clinton is the only person who's ever given a rebuttal and gone on to win the Presidency, and it was 7 years later. For everyone else, it dooms them a bit. No he's referring to Jindal's speech, which was before the SOTU.
Oh, you're right. Jindal's was before Obama's first speech to Congress, not a SOTU.
Bob McDonnell gave the first rebuttal to his SOTU.
|
On February 13 2013 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 13:00 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 12:52 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:48 cLAN.Anax wrote:
@Jin: I think I get what you're saying now, because he assumes everyone will succeed, and we all know that's simply not true.
Oh. Darn. It's over already. Shoot, lol. X-D I liked it. I approve of Rubio more now. Still kinda frustrated on his stance toward entitlements, though we now live in a time where any politician who says anything about cutting SS or Medicare gets an eternally-tarnished reputation. *sigh* Politics.... :-\ We also live in a time where a huge number of Americans are living in poverty and/or don't make enough to make retirement payments, while a small fraction practically hoard money. You can only take the anti-populist stance for so long before it bites you in the ass. They have to... at least so long as the middle class isn't willing to. That's my take on it anyways. Eh, when real wages have been stagnant since the 80s for a majority of Americans while healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, I would rather jump to the conclusion that it's harder for them to save more than they aren't "willing." I don't think that's correct. Real household income has risen for all income groups and healthcare / education costs are included in inflation figures. ![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/Income%20groups.PNG) Link
Fair enough. However, US production has grown around 232% since 1979. Source
|
On February 13 2013 13:49 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:00 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 12:52 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:48 cLAN.Anax wrote:
@Jin: I think I get what you're saying now, because he assumes everyone will succeed, and we all know that's simply not true.
Oh. Darn. It's over already. Shoot, lol. X-D I liked it. I approve of Rubio more now. Still kinda frustrated on his stance toward entitlements, though we now live in a time where any politician who says anything about cutting SS or Medicare gets an eternally-tarnished reputation. *sigh* Politics.... :-\ We also live in a time where a huge number of Americans are living in poverty and/or don't make enough to make retirement payments, while a small fraction practically hoard money. You can only take the anti-populist stance for so long before it bites you in the ass. They have to... at least so long as the middle class isn't willing to. That's my take on it anyways. Eh, when real wages have been stagnant since the 80s for a majority of Americans while healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, I would rather jump to the conclusion that it's harder for them to save more than they aren't "willing." I don't think that's correct. Real household income has risen for all income groups and healthcare / education costs are included in inflation figures. Link Fair enough. However, US production has grown around 232% since 1979. Source
True and a disproportionate amount of that gain went to non-wage income. Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are.
|
On February 13 2013 14:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are.
"If the middle class were capitalists, and not the middle class, then they would be capitalists, and not the middle class"
|
On February 13 2013 14:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 13:49 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:00 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 12:52 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:48 cLAN.Anax wrote:
@Jin: I think I get what you're saying now, because he assumes everyone will succeed, and we all know that's simply not true.
Oh. Darn. It's over already. Shoot, lol. X-D I liked it. I approve of Rubio more now. Still kinda frustrated on his stance toward entitlements, though we now live in a time where any politician who says anything about cutting SS or Medicare gets an eternally-tarnished reputation. *sigh* Politics.... :-\ We also live in a time where a huge number of Americans are living in poverty and/or don't make enough to make retirement payments, while a small fraction practically hoard money. You can only take the anti-populist stance for so long before it bites you in the ass. They have to... at least so long as the middle class isn't willing to. That's my take on it anyways. Eh, when real wages have been stagnant since the 80s for a majority of Americans while healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, I would rather jump to the conclusion that it's harder for them to save more than they aren't "willing." I don't think that's correct. Real household income has risen for all income groups and healthcare / education costs are included in inflation figures. Link Fair enough. However, US production has grown around 232% since 1979. Source True and a disproportionate amount of that gain went to non-wage income. Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are.
Really? I thought a majority of the investment income was coming from a funding of consumer credit. Had they saved more, the returns probably would have been much less. Instead of rewarding those workers with higher wages for increased production, those that employed them (indirectly) loaned them the money instead.
|
^This is what we call "the company store"
edit: thank aksfjh, that's a very interesting point
|
On February 13 2013 14:33 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 14:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:49 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:00 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 12:52 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:48 cLAN.Anax wrote:
@Jin: I think I get what you're saying now, because he assumes everyone will succeed, and we all know that's simply not true.
Oh. Darn. It's over already. Shoot, lol. X-D I liked it. I approve of Rubio more now. Still kinda frustrated on his stance toward entitlements, though we now live in a time where any politician who says anything about cutting SS or Medicare gets an eternally-tarnished reputation. *sigh* Politics.... :-\ We also live in a time where a huge number of Americans are living in poverty and/or don't make enough to make retirement payments, while a small fraction practically hoard money. You can only take the anti-populist stance for so long before it bites you in the ass. They have to... at least so long as the middle class isn't willing to. That's my take on it anyways. Eh, when real wages have been stagnant since the 80s for a majority of Americans while healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, I would rather jump to the conclusion that it's harder for them to save more than they aren't "willing." I don't think that's correct. Real household income has risen for all income groups and healthcare / education costs are included in inflation figures. Link Fair enough. However, US production has grown around 232% since 1979. Source True and a disproportionate amount of that gain went to non-wage income. Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are. Really? I thought a majority of the investment income was coming from a funding of consumer credit. Had they saved more, the returns probably would have been much less. Instead of rewarding those workers with higher wages for increased production, those that employed them (indirectly) loaned them the money instead.
I don't think consumer credit is very big. I think most is tied to the nation's capital stock (factories, offices, equipment, houses, etc.)
On February 13 2013 14:30 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 14:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are. "If the middle class were capitalists, and not the middle class, then they would be capitalists, and not the middle class"
OK, but in real life those lines are blurred  Even ol' Harvey quips about his 401K
|
|
|
I missed the state of the union speech can some one give me a summary of what Obama basically said please?
|
On February 13 2013 14:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 14:33 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 14:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:49 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:00 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 12:52 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:48 cLAN.Anax wrote:
@Jin: I think I get what you're saying now, because he assumes everyone will succeed, and we all know that's simply not true.
Oh. Darn. It's over already. Shoot, lol. X-D I liked it. I approve of Rubio more now. Still kinda frustrated on his stance toward entitlements, though we now live in a time where any politician who says anything about cutting SS or Medicare gets an eternally-tarnished reputation. *sigh* Politics.... :-\ We also live in a time where a huge number of Americans are living in poverty and/or don't make enough to make retirement payments, while a small fraction practically hoard money. You can only take the anti-populist stance for so long before it bites you in the ass. They have to... at least so long as the middle class isn't willing to. That's my take on it anyways. Eh, when real wages have been stagnant since the 80s for a majority of Americans while healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, I would rather jump to the conclusion that it's harder for them to save more than they aren't "willing." I don't think that's correct. Real household income has risen for all income groups and healthcare / education costs are included in inflation figures. Link Fair enough. However, US production has grown around 232% since 1979. Source True and a disproportionate amount of that gain went to non-wage income. Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are. Really? I thought a majority of the investment income was coming from a funding of consumer credit. Had they saved more, the returns probably would have been much less. Instead of rewarding those workers with higher wages for increased production, those that employed them (indirectly) loaned them the money instead. I don't think consumer credit is very big. I think most is tied to the nation's capital stock (factories, offices, equipment, houses, etc.)
Housing/mortgage is tied to consumer credit. If it wasn't, the housing bubble wouldn't have been such a big deal. In one swoop, not only did the worst crash since 1929 erase a great deal of middle class investment (homes), but highlighted the poor shape it was already in. When the housing market collapsed, it showed us that the middle class was on it's last leg to begin with, putting all their savings into their homes, without much option since wages didn't allow them to "diversify their portfolio."
|
On February 13 2013 15:17 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 14:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 14:33 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 14:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:49 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:00 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 12:52 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:48 cLAN.Anax wrote:
@Jin: I think I get what you're saying now, because he assumes everyone will succeed, and we all know that's simply not true.
Oh. Darn. It's over already. Shoot, lol. X-D I liked it. I approve of Rubio more now. Still kinda frustrated on his stance toward entitlements, though we now live in a time where any politician who says anything about cutting SS or Medicare gets an eternally-tarnished reputation. *sigh* Politics.... :-\ We also live in a time where a huge number of Americans are living in poverty and/or don't make enough to make retirement payments, while a small fraction practically hoard money. You can only take the anti-populist stance for so long before it bites you in the ass. They have to... at least so long as the middle class isn't willing to. That's my take on it anyways. Eh, when real wages have been stagnant since the 80s for a majority of Americans while healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, I would rather jump to the conclusion that it's harder for them to save more than they aren't "willing." I don't think that's correct. Real household income has risen for all income groups and healthcare / education costs are included in inflation figures. Link Fair enough. However, US production has grown around 232% since 1979. Source True and a disproportionate amount of that gain went to non-wage income. Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are. Really? I thought a majority of the investment income was coming from a funding of consumer credit. Had they saved more, the returns probably would have been much less. Instead of rewarding those workers with higher wages for increased production, those that employed them (indirectly) loaned them the money instead. I don't think consumer credit is very big. I think most is tied to the nation's capital stock (factories, offices, equipment, houses, etc.) Housing/mortgage is tied to consumer credit. If it wasn't, the housing bubble wouldn't have been such a big deal. In one swoop, not only did the worst crash since 1929 erase a great deal of middle class investment (homes), but highlighted the poor shape it was already in. When the housing market collapsed, it showed us that the middle class was on it's last leg to begin with, putting all their savings into their homes, without much option since wages didn't allow them to "diversify their portfolio."
Mortgages are considered separate from consumer credit. A large part of the problem there was the lack of savings - homes sold with little equity.
The reason for little equity was twofold: not enough savings for a large down payment and a lust for larger and more expensive homes.
|
On February 13 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 15:17 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 14:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 14:33 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 14:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:49 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:00 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 12:52 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
We also live in a time where a huge number of Americans are living in poverty and/or don't make enough to make retirement payments, while a small fraction practically hoard money. You can only take the anti-populist stance for so long before it bites you in the ass. They have to... at least so long as the middle class isn't willing to. That's my take on it anyways. Eh, when real wages have been stagnant since the 80s for a majority of Americans while healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, I would rather jump to the conclusion that it's harder for them to save more than they aren't "willing." I don't think that's correct. Real household income has risen for all income groups and healthcare / education costs are included in inflation figures. Link Fair enough. However, US production has grown around 232% since 1979. Source True and a disproportionate amount of that gain went to non-wage income. Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are. Really? I thought a majority of the investment income was coming from a funding of consumer credit. Had they saved more, the returns probably would have been much less. Instead of rewarding those workers with higher wages for increased production, those that employed them (indirectly) loaned them the money instead. I don't think consumer credit is very big. I think most is tied to the nation's capital stock (factories, offices, equipment, houses, etc.) Housing/mortgage is tied to consumer credit. If it wasn't, the housing bubble wouldn't have been such a big deal. In one swoop, not only did the worst crash since 1929 erase a great deal of middle class investment (homes), but highlighted the poor shape it was already in. When the housing market collapsed, it showed us that the middle class was on it's last leg to begin with, putting all their savings into their homes, without much option since wages didn't allow them to "diversify their portfolio." Mortgages are considered separate from consumer credit. A large part of the problem there was the lack of savings - homes sold with little equity. The reason for little equity was twofold: not enough savings for a large down payment and a lust for larger and more expensive homes.
They are different, but a home mortgage can act as leverage for more consumer credit. That still leads me back to the same point, if middle class families would have "saved" instead of borrowing so much for a home and living expenses, where would the money be invested if that's where the money was going anyways?
|
On February 13 2013 15:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 15:17 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 14:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 14:33 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 14:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:49 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 13:00 aksfjh wrote:On February 13 2013 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
They have to... at least so long as the middle class isn't willing to. That's my take on it anyways. Eh, when real wages have been stagnant since the 80s for a majority of Americans while healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, I would rather jump to the conclusion that it's harder for them to save more than they aren't "willing." I don't think that's correct. Real household income has risen for all income groups and healthcare / education costs are included in inflation figures. Link Fair enough. However, US production has grown around 232% since 1979. Source True and a disproportionate amount of that gain went to non-wage income. Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are. Really? I thought a majority of the investment income was coming from a funding of consumer credit. Had they saved more, the returns probably would have been much less. Instead of rewarding those workers with higher wages for increased production, those that employed them (indirectly) loaned them the money instead. I don't think consumer credit is very big. I think most is tied to the nation's capital stock (factories, offices, equipment, houses, etc.) Housing/mortgage is tied to consumer credit. If it wasn't, the housing bubble wouldn't have been such a big deal. In one swoop, not only did the worst crash since 1929 erase a great deal of middle class investment (homes), but highlighted the poor shape it was already in. When the housing market collapsed, it showed us that the middle class was on it's last leg to begin with, putting all their savings into their homes, without much option since wages didn't allow them to "diversify their portfolio." Mortgages are considered separate from consumer credit. A large part of the problem there was the lack of savings - homes sold with little equity. The reason for little equity was twofold: not enough savings for a large down payment and a lust for larger and more expensive homes. They are different, but a home mortgage can act as leverage for more consumer credit. That still leads me back to the same point, if middle class families would have "saved" instead of borrowing so much for a home and living expenses, where would the money be invested if that's where the money was going anyways?
If the middle class saved more and put it into their homes then more of the wealth from their homes would have flowed to them instead of the lenders (the rich) and their middlemen (banks).
|
"We can also help our economy grow if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world's best and brightest," Rubio said. "We need a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. But first, we must follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws."
That line is basically what every conservative in America wanted to hear. We need a better legal immigration system. We need a solution for those currently in the country legally. FIRST, we need to do more than a pretense of securing our borders because that is what's continually promised and never delivered. Reagan's amnesty bill was sold (to him as much as to the American people) as tough on future illegals and was ineffectual.
He follows that kind of line for the next 3 years and I doubt they'll be a different presidential candidate for the Republican party, barring a financial or romantic scandal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
