Comments for State of the Union reactions »
Posted By STONERS 1 year, 9 months ago in NewsSome quotes about President Bush's final State of the Union address Monday.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 319 of 321 Comments
-
Neutral
rimbaud1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 9 months ago
-
DanmLiberalsComment removed: Retracted by user83 Replies
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DamLiberals, I Remember and i think you do too a balance budget. A surplus of 500 billion, an economy that we all had a stake in.
To me you just make noises because you can, the results of this administration is not one to hang your hat on. In a word bad, that's what they have been from start to finish.
You say nothing will change because you are hoping you will convince yourself that you were correct in voting for these idiots. I will bet you anything the DEMS will be better. How can you be worse than this? you would have to be down right mentally inept to do worse than this.
My 10 year old could do better, why he would listen!
Reply-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DamnLiberals...
You, like some others, seem to make fun of Obama's last name...trying to be cute by substituting an "s" in place of the "b".
Let's say in 15-20 years, a Republican with the first name of Adolph becomes a contender for the White House. Thank you'll make fun of his name, even if you align with him perfectly, issues-wise?
Reply -
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DanmLiberals
Oh how I hate the line that goes "if the liberals (aka Democrats) win we will get higher taxes".
Under the fiscally prudent hand of Mr. Bush's administration the annual budget went from a surplus of 236 billion to an unbroken series of deficit budgets. The national debt went from 5.6 trillion to 9.2 trillion and counting.
All praise to Mr Bush for his tax cuts (whether those cuts helped only the rich or predominantly the rich is a separate debate), of course you have to ignore the fact that his administration spend way more money than it brought in and that sooner or later the debt collectors will come knocking.
When that day comes either taxes will go up or spending will go down massively or Willie Nelson will be doing a benefit while the auctioneer accepts bids on lot number 403, a fully equipped airborne division.
Regardless of who gets elected they couldn't do much worse than Mr. Bush.
Reply -
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dusted off those old empty scare tactics did ya??
What happened, did your flip flopper speech get tired for even you??
Can you bring ANY actual information to the table, or can we just expect more of the same??
Don't bother to answer..We already know how the
American Moronic lobby presents themselves..
Just keep asking Rush and Sean for your marching orders..
oh, that's right..one of them supports Romney (and hates Huckabee and McCain)and the other Giuliani ..whatever will you do??
We know..You'll just vote against McCain..
Hmm..but what is the most effective way to do that, and whatever will you do if he gets nominated???
Reply
-
-
Neutral
engineer1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
seconchance
You're out of your mind
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={D6...
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>I'm simply saying, if we get a Dem president, they will raise taxes on us in countless ways. The economy will die.
Can't you see that's what Bush's tax "CUTS" have gotten us? The only ones to see a real "cut" were the wealthiest 1% and the biggest corps, mostly the oil & energy sector - W's buddies.
All those tax cuts meant lower federal moneys to state & local gov'ts, which meant higher state & local taxes, and/or higher prices for just about everything. Not to mention cuts in services formerly available from the gov't that now costs money or more money than it used to.
Reply-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The average worker in China makes about $1000 US dollars per year."
Yet somehow they are able to nurture their family.
If you where to make a pie chart of your Wallmart flat screen I would hazard to guess that the labor cost per unit would be a fatter wedge.
How long is the "cool stuff" going to last?
Singer sewing machine got smart and traded their indestructible machines for ones that offered fancy chain stitching.
They smashed the returned machines.
The concept of Planned obsolescence only speaks to those that lack the ability to come up with an original idea.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>I wonder how many flat screen TVs are being loaded onto container ships as I type?
You mean ships from countries that are making them by US companies that are getting tax breaks for sending US jobs to those other countries that are making our tv's?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thats right, keep on spending. Dont save a penny. Hell, get yourself TWO flat screens.
Now THATS sound fiscal policy brought to you by the Republican party!
McCain / Romney going to continue right along with that brilliant economic insight too?
Reply -
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I will give mune back in a heart beat if it fixes our economy! i cant see how an extra 1500 or so can take the place of me losing my job in a bad economy! But you might want to explain that to me if you can.
Taxes is what made this nation and without it we will be nothing but a nation ow have and have nots!
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>The unemployment rate is at about 5%
That's the biggest farce second only to "Iraq has WMD's"
The "official" unemployment rate doesn't take into account those who have not been able to find a job after a certain period. It also doesn't take into account those who lost their good-paying jobs to overseas workers & are making minimum wage at that wallmart where you're going to buy your flat screen tv.
There was a study a few years ago by Queens College that showed the ACTUAL unemployment rate was closer to 20% of those capable of doing, & wanting to find, a job but couldn't.
Not to mention that both Reagan AND W changed the way they counted the unemployed to boost their numbers.
Reply -
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The big lie about Unemployment is once you are off of it job or no you are no longer counted as being Unemployed. I do wish people would not be led by the nose like a crazed bull and do some thinking and research before opening their mouths.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
MonkeyBiz1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you must be familiar with schools for the retards, or you are very rich. Nobody in my working class family got much of a tax cut, but I know a couple of wealthy individuals that got HUGE tax cuts. Don't you remember the mantra, "the ones paying the bills should get the tax cuts." There was little to no tax relief for the working class in any of the repug tax cuts. And whatever there was was lost to the higher local taxes to make up the difference in the lost federal funding.
Also check your history before making such nonsense statements as "if we elect a democrat, the economy will die." That is ignorant at best, a flat out lie at worst. Most major economic meltdowns have come at the hands of Repug presidents, not dems.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is true that in absolute dollars the richest got much bigger tax cuts,but if you take it as a percentage of taxes paid, the cuts to the lower income earners were bigger. In addition, the threshold of where people begin to pay taxes was increased. Yes, some people got a $100,000 tax break, but it's hard to give someone that kind of tax cut if they're only paying $1500 / year in taxes in the first place. But, if I was at the lower limit of taxability and I was paying that $1500 / year in taxes, but now I pay no taxes at all, is that really less of a tax break than the guy who was paying 900K and is now paying 800K?
Reply-
Neutral
cosmogenium1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not true. Percentage wise or money wise, the rich got richer and the poor got more numerous.
Whatever happened to the idea that those who can afford it should pay for the privilege? The super-rich got rich on the backs of the people. Why shouldn't the people get something in return?
CEO pay went up 2000% in the last twenty years while average worker pay went nowhere adjusted for inflation. 1% of the people hold 90% of the money. Shouldn't they be paying their share? If they don't, where will it come from?
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>CEO pay went up 2000% in the last twenty years while average worker pay went nowhere adjusted for inflation.
You're right. The only time since Reagan took office that the real salaries of average workers was NOT stagnant or declining was under Clinton.
So much for their theory that Democrats ruin the economy.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Second - take a look at the state of the economy that's an indication on how well this bush tax cut worked...under clinotn taxes were raised, however companies were making sooo much money they were offering recent grads $50,000 to come work for them. How do i know this you ask, because I got a BMW and $25,000 to move to New York from OSU you don't hear about things like this anymore!
Reply -
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>The Bush administration gave us all tax cuts and actual $ refunds to most all Americans.
Don't you realize that that "refund" they sent to everyone was an advance & was actually considered income on the following tax return?
That whopping $300 my wife & I received didn't even pay for 1 week's worth of child care. Wonderful tax cut.
And my refunds were LOWER than my refunds under Clinton's tax "increases." You don't get it. W's tax cuts went to the wealthiest in this country. And the reduced revenue caused federal funding to states & localities that either raised local taxes & fees or cut formerly free services all together.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You don't understand government, but you certainly understand the old man's philosophy of lower expectations because higher expectations cost more...
I imagine you still won't admit that it is the "old men" who put us in this situation...
Try thinking young for a change...It's refreshing!!
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
protoham1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The answer was put forth by Mike Huckabee. Eliminate the Federal Income Tax and put a 25% tax on all sales. I would go a step further and make that 25% on all products not made in the US.
Think about how that would drive business into the US. But the key is we have to do it now, before it is to late. This is how the Fed is suspose to tax according to the constitution.
Reply-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, BAD idea. I think Huck's flat tax idea is a big mistake and it would soak the poor (yet again) and it would be another handout to the rich (yet again).
NOT WHAT WE NEED!
A return to more reasoned progressive taxation is sorely needed...
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, it wouldn't because everything I have ever read on a national sales tax (which is NOT a flat tax) is that food and other necessities would be excluded. Therefore, each person could more or less control his tax contribution -- by not buying luxuries and other things that are not strictly necessary.
A flat tax on the other hand, generally exempts a certain portion of your income -- 10K or 15K per person, maybe more -- and then taxes the rest of your income at the same rate for everyone, with few, if any deductions. Personally, I believe both of these options are far more fair than the byzantine tax system we have going on now -- with tiered rates and many, many deductions.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
let them eat cake, right?
How about an intelligent and thought out plan that doesn't allow lower income earners from spending 37% of their income on taxed necessities and a provides for higher income earns to invest in creating jobs, instead of letting them keep more money to homes and boats...
Do you think it's about time we detail the new fairer American dream tax plan instead of just readjusting it into a simplistic caveman's version that creates a divide between winners and losers???
THAT takes leadership..
THAT requires great minds and the involvement of many.
Aren't you tired of cute one-liners that simply drag us along firther into no solution?? I know I am..
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is the most asinine thing i have ever red on here...secondchance i hope you were kidding when you wrote this...the economy is not in the state it's in because of the DEMS it is because of what your side has done in the last 8 years. We did give you a sound economy when you took office, and you will return it in the same state if not worse than ron and bush 1 left it.
Reply -
Neutral
pongping1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Next time you wanna start a war, figure out how you're going to pay for it (without borrowing from a potential adversary). The stimulus package is bogus. As was the rate cut! They are both welfare for the rich. A natural correction would ultimately force us to innovate our way out of this mess.
And no, I don't think anything the Dems do will be much better than Repubs.
Reply -
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All this does is serving as evidence that the RIGHT of this nation has lost their collective minds. We are staving off a depression and recession but we shouldn't increase the taxes, are you kidding me?
Tell me please where will the money come from, are we going to borrow more from China?
I am so glad this is the last time I will have to endure this idiot, and I hope that our nation comes to their senses and make it the last time we have to endure the republican congress person that aided and abided Bush in this destruction of our nation.
They don't get it, they were awful, terrible, the worse ever, and they were barley better than a dictator in a third world country. Hugo Chavez out governed these idiots...Look you know things are bad when you have to ask if Rove stills works for the president, he has been in hiding!
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
cosmogenium1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We wouldn't be in a recession if your party hadn't caused it by borrowing like crazy in the first place.
And I remember a full-page add in the NYT taken out by 12 nobel-laureate economists saying that the Bush tax-cuts were the wrong thing to do.
Reply -
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Normally, a tax-cut is not a bad thing. However, there are three reasons for this recession (that may exist - quarterly figures aren't out yet for successive quarters of recession):
1. Injudicious tax cuts. Fiscal policy is a good lever to use to prevent an overheated (and inflationary) economy, and thus as a recession preventative. Bush's tax cuts abrogated this vital economic function of the government.
2. Insufficient regulation. The sub-prime crisis (credit crisis) has been caused by lack of regulation on lending bodies, which has allowed them to greedily lend sums of money which could not be repaid by the borrowers. The borrowers are hardly blameless, but it is easier to regulate corporations than individuals. Also, a little regulation regarding wages and working conditions wouldn't go astray.
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
3. "Trickle-down" economics doesn't work. Any healthy economy is fueled by healthy consumption patterns at the lower end of the spectrum (i.e, the lower-paid people). Giving the rich money simply ensures that they will invest it overseas, where it can't be taxed. This fails to benefit the economy. Perhaps, in the days prior to globalisation taking hold, the theory might have worked. But not now. Allowing employers to squeeze every last penny out of the working poor to pay bigger dividends to the rich doesn't help the fabric of your economy. Too many people have forgotten that economics is a cross between commerce and social science. The economy is not, in the final analysis, a set of abstact numbers - it is a living, breathing entity.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Look, Clinton fixed it and he did so by raising taxes. Here is where clinton went in the correct direction he also cut spending...Under clinton we had the lease amount of money ever spent on defence by a present day president. Before you say it, we were still the strongest army in the world,
it was during this time the Europeans estimate that if all of europe came up against the US they would lose in an all out war. And Clinton spent 50 billion a year on the armforces.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ecotourusa1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did anyone happen to catch the pres when he said that we would be hosting the north american summit in New Orleans?
that's the north american union which we will not be invited to the summit. this is where our leaders of mexico, canada and usa will meet behind closed doors. we will have no vote or ability to make decisions. and then our leadera will introduce the amero to a neighborhood country near you. and we will accept illegals from other countries so that they can hire cheap labor and keep our job wages low.
Reply
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned52 Replies
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
coreyspringComment removed: Retracted by user3 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
spkguy1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Question on Yahoo Answers....
Resolved Question
Bush's final State of the Union speech is tonight...your thoughts on his presidency ?
a) loved it
b) hated it
c) some good, some bad
e) 1/20/09 can't get here soon enough
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
e - The worst excuse for a president in American history!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Harbeas1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My, look at all these politicians saying all the right things about what should be done! Why don't the act instead of talking? I'll tell you why. It's called political partisanship, a most undesirable trait of our government, which seems to be getting worse. Everyone wants to blame the president for our troubles. But what has congress done in the meantime, nothing! If political partisanship was not so rampant, how many of the presidents bills would have, should have, been overridden? Let's get real here and understand that congress has the power to do so much more than they have. Remember this when you go to the polls and vote for your next senator and representative!
Reply-
Neutral
engineer1 year, 9 months ago
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user19 Replies
-
-
rdy2rckComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I interrupted my families television schedule to watch the address, I still like the civility that is shown at this event it is much better to see people talk instead of fight which does happen in some political systems. As for the speach well Ho Hum, my one son sat and watch the speach with me and asked why one side stood up and applauded and the other side usually remained seated, I guess i should have explained why but I chose to make light of it and said that some people relize there is a shortage of energy in the U.S. so they remained seated. I will take some time today to try and explain the differences beteen the two parties and their policies.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
chevydog1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Never listen to these things; they're all certified exercises in horn tooting--have been for years.
There's a story about a terrorist who kidnapped a busload of banjo players. His demands were for $1 MM in small, unmarked bills. Otherwise, he would relase the guys.
Reply -
-
Shankari25Comment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned8 Replies
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Like him or not, he has protected this country from more terrorist attacks."
Do you have any empirical evidence of this? Bombs still get through airport security regularly. Our borders are not secure and he did not protect us from the first attack. IMO, OBL does not have the need or desire to directly attack us, he only needs to act like it. That is enough to make us fear him, change the way government deals with its citizenry, and change the way we live. In this, he has succeeded. It is a crime that we allow him to continue to operate, but then again, that may be the intent because it serves a purpose to follow the path we are on.
"Don't start in with the economy C.R.A.P., I've been on this planet almost 46 years, I've seen much worse under other presidents."
You certainly aren't setting the bar very high.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned9 Replies
-
loading ...
