Obama's State of the Union Address

[Beth]

Yes, the full text of the speech is released to the other party and the media well in advance. In fact, the text of the rebuttal was released to the media well in advance.

That said, I found the rebuttal to be a pretty generic attack on Obama, and in some cases didn't seem to be responding to the same speech Obama had just given. For example, the rebuttal talked at length about how Obama refuses to change entitlement programs when Obama had just said that he was willing to change entitlement programs in exchange for some tax concessions from the GOP.

-Bri

This was my opinion too. The rebuttal seemed unrelated to what Obama had said.

 

[Bri]

Is it just me or does the entire concept of a rebuttal speech seem weird?

I mean if I give a speech on the state of the household budget does anyone expect someone else to demand and get a "rebuttal speech?"

Obviously you haven't been to my house.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So how can anyone (politically) argue against the proposed Warren Buffet rule for a minimum tax for people with over $1 million in income?

I'm very interested to see where the right is still able to portray itself as a populist movement catering to working class people but argue that rejecting this minimum 30% tax is somehow in the interest of the "soon to haves".

The only objections I can think of myself are these 2:

1. It takes money away from "job creators" who would otherwise use the money to create jobs.

2. We're only talking about relatively very few taxpayers, so the amount of money isn't very significant, and the issue is primarily symbolic rather than substantive.

My rebuttals are:
1. The government could spend that money on direct job creation, and the millionaire could simply donate that money to the Mormon church (or buy a yacht or invest it in overseas job creation).

2. True enough, but many of the same people making this argument were willing to play brinksmanship with the government's ability to pay its debts over the issues of funding for CPB and Planned Parenthood--issues they were pretending were budget issues but were in fact primarily partisan policy issues having little actual significance to the budget. Also, the very same argument could be made for ANY effort to reduce budget deficits. There is no single change (either revenue increase or spending cut) that could be made that will make up the huge deficit. And also, the symbolic issue of fairness is very important. For some of us "soon to haves", it's pretty much all we have.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's funny how it's always the other guy who makes too much.

If you feel that your CEO makes too much money, then find another job if it bothers you that much.

You make it sound so easy. The amount of money that the executives make, and then sit on, has led to a lack of circulation of wealth through the ecconomy, thus cutting demand for consumer goods and services, thus a lack of jobs.

The people who make the most money these days are doing the least for the world.

 

[Travis]

If they were actually state of the union addresses instead of campaign speeches I would agree. But they aren't.

Yes, this too.

We need to end both of these things.

 

[leftysergeant]

You're an overpaid physics teacher, so you should have taken a pay cut.

By the same token, a CEO who drives a company into the ditch should have to return part of his paycheck.

 

[Almo]

I wish they'd drop the Teleprompters. I hate the stops in the speech while they wait for the next line to come up.

And the last 5 minute collective American pat-on-the-back was excessive. We will be going down the road of the UK-type decline soon with the quality of our education and over-expenditure on the military.

Still voting for him though. Most of what he said made sense. Not all, but most.

 

[leftysergeant]

BTW, did anybody notice that just prior to the SOTU address, the Lion of Abottobad set Team Six on another enemy camp and rescued a Dane and an American from Somali pirates?

The man knows how to kick some terrorist ass, eh?

 

[cwalner]

You make it sound so easy. The amount of money that the executives make, and then sit on, has led to a lack of circulation of wealth through the ecconomy, thus cutting demand for consumer goods and services, thus a lack of jobs.

The people who make the most money these days are doing the least for the world.

You make it sound as if they are stuffing it in their mattresses. Typically they would be putting those profits into banks, where it is available to be loaned out, or in investments, or just buying stuff with it. They are not removing it from circulation.

 

[leftysergeant]

You make it sound as if they are stuffing it in their mattresses. Typically they would be putting those profits into banks, where it is available to be loaned out, or in investments, or just buying stuff with it. They are not removing it from circulation.

Actually, a lot of them, like a certain poppinjay running for POTUS right now, put it in banks in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands and live off the interest that vulture capitalists are extorting from Third World countries that got trapped into idiotic loans by some petty despot.

 

[cwalner]

Actually, a lot of them, like a certain poppinjay running for POTUS right now, put it in banks in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands and live off the interest that vulture capitalists are extorting from Third World countries that got trapped into idiotic loans by some petty despot.

If it is earning interest, it is not out of circulation. Your issue is that they are investing it overseas, rather than investing here in the US, which is a completely different matter than what you stated originally.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If it is earning interest, it is not out of circulation.

Are you sure?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/b...-they-cant-profitably-use.html?pagewanted=all

Your issue is that they are investing it overseas, rather than investing here in the US, which is a completely different matter than what you stated originally.

Does it matter when it was stated?

I would add that money that could have been used to create jobs for everyone might also be donated to the Mormon Church.

 

[leftysergeant]

If it is earning interest, it is not out of circulation. Your issue is that they are investing it overseas, rather than investing here in the US, which is a completely different matter than what you stated originally.

It aint recirculating here. That it recirculates in China does us a lot of harm, actually, so why should the investor drongo get any tax breaks from us?

 

[real american]

I dont plan on voting for the President, my taste in a candidate is one more in favor of Austrian Economics, of which this President is Not.

 

[daenku32]

I dont plan on voting for the President, my taste in a candidate is one more in favor of Austrian Economics, of which this President is Not.

A Real American(TM) wouldn't favor an Austrian.

Besides, in the economic circles it gets really simple:
There's Obama, who will keep running things fiscally. Not big enough for some, but keeping about the size. The economy will slowly improve.
Then there's the competition, all of whom want to drastically cut government next year, which would cause a massive recession and higher unemployment.

So I think it's obvious who we should vote for.

 

[real american]

A Real American(TM) wouldn't favor an Austrian.

Besides, in the economic circles it gets really simple:
There's Obama, who will keep running things fiscally. Not big enough for some, but keeping about the size. The economy will slowly improve.
Then there's the competition, all of whom want to drastically cut government next year, which would cause a massive recession and higher unemployment.

So I think it's obvious who we should vote for.

I am a Conservative on fiscal issues and believe we need to cut government spending and size. I think the bigger the government the more restrictions we have. Also it has been prven spending doesnt get you out of the hole, look at Hoover.

 

[eeyore1954]

So how can anyone (politically) argue against the proposed Warren Buffet rule for a minimum tax for people with over $1 million in income?

I'm very interested to see where the right is still able to portray itself as a populist movement catering to working class people but argue that rejecting this minimum 30% tax is somehow in the interest of the "soon to haves".

My "argument" would be 30% (or doubling) is too high for a capital gains tax.
At a glance it appears tax revenue is higher when the rate is lower. Of course this could also have more to do with stock market movement than the rate?

Realized LTG Taxes on LTG Effective %of GDP Max Rate
1991 98,363 21,581 21.9 1.64 28.93
1992 114,060 25,847 22.7 1.81 28.93
1993 134,469 31,393 23.3 2.02 29.19
1994 140,392 33,092 23.6 1.99 29.19
1995 158,955 38,368 24.1 2.15 29.19
1996 233,872 58,782 25.1 2.99 29.19
1997 330,360 69,572 21.1 3.97 29.19
1998 424,762 80,611 19.0 4.84 21.19
1999 482,181 91,416 19.0 5.20 21.19
2000 588,061 111,507 19.0 5.99 21.19
2001 322,831 58,750 18.2 3.19 21.17
2002 251,301 44,984 17.9 2.40 21.16
2003 294,811 44,903 15.2 2.69 21.05
2004 466,224 66,154 14.2 3.99 16.05
2005 648,430 92,304 14.2 5.22 16.05
2006 750,771 106,568 14.2 5.60 15.70
2007 [3] 861,220 121,933 14.2 6.12 15.70



1968 35,607 5,943 16.7 3.91 26.90
1969 31,439 5,275 16.8 3.19 27.50
1970 20,848 3,161 15.2 2.01 32.21
1971 28,341 4,350 15.3 2.52 34.25
1972 35,869 5,708 15.9 2.90 36.50
1973 35,757 5,366 15.0 2.59 36.50
1974 30,217 4,253 14.1 2.02 36.50
1975 30,903 4,534 14.7 1.89 36.50
1976 39,492 6,621 16.8 2.16 39.875
1977 45,338 8,232 18.2 2.23 39.875
1978 50,526 9,104 18.0 2.20 39.875/33.85
1979 73,443 11,753 16.0 2.87 28.00
1980 74,132 12,459 16.8 2.66 28.00
1981 80,938 12,852 15.9 2.59 28.00/20.00
1982 90,153 12,900 14.3 2.77 20.00
1983 122,773 18,700 15.2 3.47 20.00
1984 140,500 21,453 15.3 3.57 20.00



The tables did not appear the way I would have liked?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why on earth did any of you skeptics bother to watch the Dear Leader's speech? Good for you if you want to vote for him, but I can find much better ways to spend an hour of my life than listening to any president repeat a laundry list of talking points.

I'd rather hear the whole speech than just the broadcast news soundbites. And I'm talking about the narrative, not the supposed promises.

The Republican 2012 Presidential candidates currently have the narrative that it's class warfare if you think the richest among us are under-taxed. It's socialism if you think society needs to build infrastructure and fund education. Obama is a food stamp President because wages in the private sector have been cut so low, full time workers qualify for food stamps. Homeowners who are having trouble should be foreclosed on so investors can buy up their houses and rent them out. The deficit is our worst economic problem but taxing the wealthiest 1% at the same rate as those who earn less is somehow going to eliminate jobs.

Obama's narrative is everyone should be paying their fair share, our infrastructure investments are seriously underfunded, investing in education is needed, it's in all our interests to help responsible homeowners who are in economic trouble rather than continuing to evict them all from their houses.


I don't buy the Republican narrative, and I do buy Obama's.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You make it sound as if they are stuffing it in their mattresses. Typically they would be putting those profits into banks, where it is available to be loaned out, or in investments, or just buying stuff with it. They are not removing it from circulation.

But aren't the banks hoarding the cash and not loaning it out?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My "argument" would be 30% (or doubling) is too high for a capital gains tax.

But the proposal isn't to change the capital gains tax rate. It's something that would only apply to people making a million dollars or more.

And really, people who do that, and aren't being payed a regular salary are essentially disguising regular income as capital gains. They should be taxed at the max income tax rate for their income.

I think the "Warren Buffet rule" approach would resolve the problem without the problems that just increasing the capital gains tax would add. With the inequity in tax rates, people who do investing for a living have an incentive to define their income as capital gains. While raising the capital gains rate across the board would address that problem, it would also cause all the problems conservatives point to (discourage investment, cause problems for some people selling their homes, etc.)

Obama's proposal, it seems to me, is a pretty focused solution, that seems to me to be a no-brainer.