Chimpy's State of the Union address 2008

[Flagg]

I give credit where credit is due. There is one portion of his speech where I not only agreed with him 100% but smiled at the joke he used to underline his point. When he said "There are some who say they are willing to pay higher taxes, I'm happy to say the IRS accepts checks and money orders." Nice. Yes, at least when it comes to taxes I find myself a staunch Republican. Good on him for that one.

Yeah, fuck you poor people and those who need government assistance but can't get it due to no money being in the system!

That Strawman you just constructed should have been the monster in Cloverfield.

Yeah, sorry about that. I keep forgetting how pointing out how the Republican outlook on tax policy effects the poor and those in need of assistance is a "strawman".

[Xisiqomelir]

Personally, the most offensive part for me was the push for immunity for the telcos.

[Kuja]

Applause, especially standing ovations, needed to be fucking banned from the SotU address. I'm fucking tired of sentence-applause-sentence-sentence-applause BS.

[Darth Wong]

I give credit where credit is due. There is one portion of his speech where I not only agreed with him 100% but smiled at the joke he used to underline his point. When he said "There are some who say they are willing to pay higher taxes, I'm happy to say the IRS accepts checks and money orders." Nice. Yes, at least when it comes to taxes I find myself a staunch Republican. Good on him for that one.

You realize that his tax cuts have been primarily to the wealthy, don't you? Part of the problem in your country is that the gap between rich and poor is so obscenely large, and growing larger every year.

Mostly everything else was a rinse repeat of his other State of the Union speeches. Plus with all of his threats of vetoing and "if you don't do this" you could almost see most of the Congress shrugging their shoulders. The man is just about completely irrelevant at this point. His poll numbers have not climbed from the basement in years and this is his final year. He's got nothing.

You almost feel sorry for this asshole. He desperately wants a legacy that doesn't paint him as one of the worst presidents in American History and it looks like he ain't gonna get it.

He has been selling a shitty agenda by trying to convince people that he would put more money in their pockets. It seems that you've bought into that campaign.

[SirNitram]

You do have to love the total-reality-disconnect of this phrase, every time it's trotted out:

'No attacks on our soil since 9/11!'

Is anyone enough of a dumbshit to buy that? The man's worship of Trickle Down shits on basic observation, but this goes well beyond that.

[Adrian Laguna]

Cheney looked like someone ran over his dog for a good chunk of the speech, and then when Bush started talking about tax cuts a huge grin suddenly appeared in his face. Must be the fond memories of every tax return he's filed since 2002. "And now my captial gains taxes. Oh wait! "

[quote="Simplicius]Wilson also the one who popularized the in-person State of the Union, taken - as noted earlier - from the parliamentary system he admired.[/quote]
And as we can see, it has backfired rather badly, since it is now an insipid and worthless ceremony. Is there anything that man did that we can say was good for the United States in the long or short term?

[That NOS Guy]

And as we can see, it has backfired rather badly, since it is now an insipid and worthless ceremony. Is there anything that man did that we can say was good for the United States in the long or short term?

I rather like the idea of a progressive tax scheme. OTOH, considering what it morphed into I dunno.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I give credit where credit is due. There is one portion of his speech where I not only agreed with him 100% but smiled at the joke he used to underline his point. When he said "There are some who say they are willing to pay higher taxes, I'm happy to say the IRS accepts checks and money orders." Nice. Yes, at least when it comes to taxes I find myself a staunch Republican. Good on him for that one.

Yeah, fuck you poor people and those who need government assistance but can't get it due to no money being in the system!

That Strawman you just constructed should have been the monster in Cloverfield.

Its not like lower tax rates mean less revenue to fund government services. Not at all, you're right. Our government is so overfunded and our class distribution of wealth so socially healthy.

[Stravo]

I give credit where credit is due. There is one portion of his speech where I not only agreed with him 100% but smiled at the joke he used to underline his point. When he said "There are some who say they are willing to pay higher taxes, I'm happy to say the IRS accepts checks and money orders." Nice. Yes, at least when it comes to taxes I find myself a staunch Republican. Good on him for that one.

You realize that his tax cuts have been primarily to the wealthy, don't you? Part of the problem in your country is that the gap between rich and poor is so obscenely large, and growing larger every year.

Just so we're all on the same page in terms of what the actual taxes on the rich looks like

Tax Brackets


Above are the tax brackets in the US comparing 2006 v. 2007.

Using filing Single as our baseline we see this breakdown


As you can see the very top earners get taxed at 35%. Top earner are defined in 2007 as those who make $349,701 or more. More than 1/3 of their income goes to taxes.


A historical break down of tax rates over the century can be found here.

It's interesting to note that at several points in US Tax History actual millionaires were considered the top tax bracket.


US Median income as of 2006 is: $48,201.00

19% make over $100,000 (Wiki sources for both these figures)


As a comparison here are Canada's tax brackets where the top rate is 29% at a top earner rate of $123,124


In terms of taxes and paying more taxes, if the system was fairly balanced where ALL tax payers are getting benefits and tax breaks then I would not be as opposed to higher taxes.

But under the current regime because I make more money than the average I have to forgo things like tax deductions on child care, student loans interest payments, etc.

Why do I not get a break at all when I am paying more in student loan interest payment than the guy who gets a break. Or why are my child care costs not deductible at all? No one is talking about giving the higher bracket the same in terms of breaks but at least give them something. Throw them a frickin' bone because a lot of these people are not yacht owning, multiple vacation home owning people. Many people who make over $100,000 especially in areas like NYC and LA are struggling to pay the mortgage on their homes and raise their families too.

And in the end, who the hell doesn't want to keep a bigger share of their money? Does this benefit those who make more money? Shit yes. But where do you draw the line? Right now, people like me and a whole bunch of hard working professionals are lumped in with people like Trump or Bill Gates.

[SirNitram]

Stravo, why should the economic effects of these tax cuts not be examined? Since 2001 and 2003, the income gap has widened to a level comparable to before the Great Depression. The lowest income bracket never recovered from the 2001 economic bust cycle, and now we're going into a new one. 'Keep more of what you make' sounds nice, but sounding nice and having a positive impact are not the same things.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Stravo, why support lower taxes when we could just create a new top bracket and marginal rate. I am convinced the ultra-rich have eagerly encouraged politicians to lump the upper middle class in with their tax bracket, so there will be huge political popular will to oppose raising taxes. Why not have a $1,000,000+ top bracket with a 50% marginal rate. Shit, why not a $5,000,000+ bracket with 75%; the marginal rate in the 1950s was something like 80-90% on top earners.

[Gambler]

As you can see the very top earners get taxed at 35%. Top earner are defined in 2007 as those who make $349,701 or more. More than 1/3 of their income goes to taxes.

You are wrong Stravo, you are oversimplifying things.
the top bracked simply means that for every dollar you earn ABOVE $349,700 you get taxed 35%. That means that for every dollar you earn above $349,700 you have to part from 35 cents. That means no mather how much you earn, for your first $7,825 you get taxed 10%, for your next $24025 (that means your income from $7,826-31,850) you get taxed 15%, and so on. That means someone earning 400,000 DOES NOT get taxed 35%, only his last $50,300 (his income from $349,701-400,000) get taxed at 35%.

And in the end, who the hell doesn't want to keep a bigger share of their money? Does this benefit those who make more money? Shit yes. But where do you draw the line? Right now, people like me and a whole bunch of hard working professionals are lumped in with people like Trump or Bill Gates.

Hmm, you are probably paying more taxes percentagewise than either Trump or Bill Gates, seeing as most of their income is from capital gains which seems to be a ridiculous 15% in the USA.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed. The very wealthy don't worry about income tax at all, because most of their income is from capital gains. And the Bush Administration has systematically gutted the capital gains tax, as well as the extra inheritance tax for very wealthy estates: two forms of tax which primarily affect the wealthy (the latter ONLY affects the very wealthy).

[Vehrec]

What the fuck is the purpose of this ritual?

Once upon a time, Presidents wrote the State of the Union and mailed it to the Congress. This wasn't consistant, Washington liked to make a speach and Jefferson didn't, and as recently as Carter there have been presidents who 'mailed it in.'

All the constitution has to say is this:

He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." (Article II, Section 3)

The purpose is thereby enumerated, it's to focus attention and make suggestions and nothing else. So yes, it's pretty purposeless and that's why I ignore it. Even if I was a congressman, I think I would ignore this one.

[MKSheppard]

There's quite a few liberals who don't cave. They're the minority

Because they're elected from such reliable ultra liberal districts, such as Takoma Park (self-declared nuclear free zone near me).

The fix is to ditch the Blue Dogs by making it possible to be liberal in the US and still get elected. Hey, you asked what was needed to get this to stop. I didn't say it was likely.

Okay. Say goodbye to democrat control of Congress and Speaker Pelosi. It was those Blue dogs whose wins gave the democrats control over the house. Eject them, and their districts will go republican once again.

The Democrats then lose many of the procedural abilities they gained; making life instantly harder for them.

And with your new standard, say good bye to successful two term democrat presidents for the indefinite future.

I don't get why so many people here hate Clinton for moving to "centrist" positions after his early stinging defeats on health care, etc; and then appointing centrists to the DLC, et al. He realized that being ultra liberal on so many issues was a losing proposition in america; and tacked to the right; and it worked incredibly well.

[SirNitram]

There's quite a few liberals who don't cave. They're the minority

Because they're elected from such reliable ultra liberal districts, such as Takoma Park (self-declared nuclear free zone near me).

The fix is to ditch the Blue Dogs by making it possible to be liberal in the US and still get elected. Hey, you asked what was needed to get this to stop. I didn't say it was likely.

Okay. Say goodbye to democrat control of Congress and Speaker Pelosi. It was those Blue dogs whose wins gave the democrats control over the house. Eject them, and their districts will go republican once again.

The Democrats then lose many of the procedural abilities they gained; making life instantly harder for them.

And with your new standard, say good bye to successful two term democrat presidents for the indefinite future.

I don't get why so many people here hate Clinton for moving to "centrist" positions after his early stinging defeats on health care, etc; and then appointing centrists to the DLC, et al. He realized that being ultra liberal on so many issues was a losing proposition in america; and tacked to the right; and it worked incredibly well.

What language are you writing in? Being demonized, impeached, and hated does not constitute 'Worked incredibly well'. Losing the historic majority in 1994 is not under 'Worked incredibly well'. In short, you're full of shit, like usual. Twist your left ear and flush.

[Boeing 757]

I have never understood the State of the Union address. The President stands there like the Pope, behind a podium before an audience of rapt worshippers. He pontificates at length, and the audience periodically rises like automatons to offer their praise. He is never made to answer questions or discuss anything, and most of his comments are either meaningless feelgood tripe or vague promises.

What the fuck is the purpose of this ritual?

Basically, it's nothing but a clever political sham.

The only real purpose is to give the President and his party free political advertising to an immense spectating audience. The event is required to held by the U.S. constitution, but it was hardly the same as it is in modern times. "State of the Union" speeches (A term coined by Frankline Delano Roosevelt, btw.) have been delivered to Congress from the President via written letter and radio in the past, but it wasn't until the latter 20th century's widespread use of television and internet that keen-as-hell politicians got the idea to hype up the whole event with such ceremony.

Politicians know that the entire thing is just a subtle way of getting a political message across, and they treat it as one accordingly. That's why after the whole sham is over with, the opposing party not in the presidency usually delivers a rebuttal speech.

[MKSheppard]

What language are you writing in?

English.

Being demonized, impeached, and hated does not constitute 'Worked incredibly well'.

Link

In the wake of the House of Representatives' approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.

That's not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beats the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had.

At the same time, the number of Americans with an unfavorable view of the Republican Party has jumped 10 points; less than a third of the country now has a favorable view of the GOP.

Losing the historic majority in 1994 is not under 'Worked incredibly well'.

Do I have to list the innumerable ways that Clinton pretty much frustrated effort after effort by the GOP majority?

[SirNitram]

What language are you writing in?

English.

Can't be. 'Worked Incredibly Well' does not create a GOP majority when you're a Democrat.

Being demonized, impeached, and hated does not constitute 'Worked incredibly well'.

Link

In the wake of the House of Representatives' approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.

That's not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beats the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had.

At the same time, the number of Americans with an unfavorable view of the Republican Party has jumped 10 points; less than a third of the country now has a favorable view of the GOP.

Wow. Clinton was popular. Like every other vacuous retard, you ignore the objective realities I spelled out for a popularity contest.

Losing the historic majority in 1994 is not under 'Worked incredibly well'.

Do I have to list the innumerable ways that Clinton pretty much frustrated effort after effort by the GOP majority?

Do I need to point out that his 'tack to the right' put the GOP in majority for fourteen years and created the current looming recession? Or are the words in that too long and complex?

[Boeing 757]

Applause, especially standing ovations, needed to be fucking banned from the SotU address. I'm fucking tired of sentence-applause-sentence-sentence-applause BS.

You have got to hate how the the media takes those snapshots of major political figures, like Clinton and Obama's facial expressions, and also how pathetic they all look when the President says something that the other party doesn't like. You also get to see how skilled they are as actors when at one moment they give the President a dirty look, and then at the next treat him like he might be a king. It just makes them look like morons to me, tell you the truth, but it also has the advantage in offering out a subtle political message to constituent bases.

[Darth Wong]

What would have happened if a major Democratic politician had skipped the event, and informed the media that it's nothing more than political theatre so he did not feel like wasting his time on it?

[Flagg]

What would have happened if a major Democratic politician had skipped the event, and informed the media that it's nothing more than political theatre so he did not feel like wasting his time on it?

He's a disgusting disgrace who shamed the nation and himself by not respecting the office of the Presidency.

[CmdrWilkens]

What would have happened if a major Democratic politician had skipped the event, and informed the media that it's nothing more than political theatre so he did not feel like wasting his time on it?

They would be immediately accused by the entire right wing media establishment of being petty and partisan. Eventually the "mainstream" media would pick up the story as "was this partisan or not?" which answers its own question for most viewrs. So long story short, no high mucky muck will miss the chance to attend.

[Darth Wong]

What would have happened if a major Democratic politician had skipped the event, and informed the media that it's nothing more than political theatre so he did not feel like wasting his time on it?

They would be immediately accused by the entire right wing media establishment of being petty and partisan. Eventually the "mainstream" media would pick up the story as "was this partisan or not?" which answers its own question for most viewrs. So long story short, no high mucky muck will miss the chance to attend.

I don't know how you people live under such a system without going insane.

[Darth Servo]

I don't know how you people live under such a system without going insane.

I thought it was pretty well established that most of us Americans already are insane.