What are your thoughts on Obama's Speech?

[Don T. Lukbak]

"Under pressure from Wall Street, Carter reluctantly appointed Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979. Volcker had been under secretary of the Treasury for Richard Nixon and was then serving as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. However, it is naïve to think that Volcker was given a free hand by Carter. His inability to fully implement a tight-money policy is why the inflation rate fell only to 12.5 percent in 1980, despite a sharp recession that year.

It was only after the election, when Volcker knew that Carter had lost, that he really clamped down on the money supply. This illustrates an important point: Presidents get the Fed policy they want, no matter how “independent” the Fed may be. If there had been any doubt about this, it was settled in 1967, when Fed chairman William McChesney Martin buckled under pressure from Lyndon Johnson and eased monetary policy even though Martin knew he should have tightened it. This caused inflation to jump from 3 percent in 1967 to 4.7 percent in 1968 and 6.2 percent in 1969.

It is not now remembered how much pressure there was on Reagan to get rid of Volcker and have the Fed run a more accommodative monetary policy. Yet he not only supported Volcker publicly, he appointed like-minded people to the Fed whenever he had the chance. He reappointed Volcker to the chairmanship in 1983 and appointed Alan Greenspan to replace him in 1987."

from http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0406140846.asp

The point, however, is that the high national unemployment in Reagan's first term was an unavoidable consequence of tight monetary policy, the only known way to squeeze double digit inflation out of the system. Reagan policies also caused depression-era levels of unemployment here in Houston twenty-five years ago when he induced the Saudis to glut the oil market to the detriment of the Soviet economy. I almost went broke from that, and many of my friends did go broke, but it was in a good cause: economic warfare against our sworn enemy (then), the friggin' commies. So, yeah, Ronaldus' policies did create unemployment...for the sake of the greater good: stopping inflation and commies.

Now what greater good does Obama pursue with his unemployment-engendering policies? Spread the wealth around? The only greater good I can envision is entirely within his own mind: the destruction of capitalism. Either that, or he's a fucking idiot.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by topcat19542001

I suppose if you're going to blame Obama for the high unemployment rate after being in office for a year, then one would also have to blame Reagan for the high unemployment rate in 1982 which peaked at 10.8%, which was also his first year in office.
TopCat

I'm not placing blame for the rate, there is plenty of blame in DC to go around. I'm questioning the accuracy of the numbers. How do you add 1 million lost jobs to last years total and get the rate to go down?

The Fox Spin meisters are claiming the total may actually be near 18% but we're not counting those people that have dropped off of the roles. Did we use the same methods in 1982 to calculate unemployment? I honestly don't know but I do think the "real" number of people that need and want a job(my personal preference in counting unemployment) is over 10%

We all know that the feds use different calculators than us but suggesting that the unemployment rate has gone down(when it really hasn't) in order to gain back some lost political capital by "proving" that the stimulus worked is just more spin. The fact that most of us can see through it doesn't give me any more confidence as a business owner or an individual to spend more.

Another thing that I don't understand is this: The population in the US is generally estimated at 300 million. If the total number of unemployed is 8.4 million and that is 10% of the workforce that means that our workforce is only 84 million. Roughly 28% of the total population of the country is our workforce. Does that make sense? We've been told that some 50 million people don't have health insurance. OK, that's 244 million that do have coverage. If only 76 million people are working and the average family is 3.1 that is 234 million people that should have coverage if all employers offered coverage of some type. But they don't. Let's say for the sake of argument that 75% of full time employees have coverage that's 175 million covered. That means 75 million people have coverage that is privately funded??? That is as many people as have jobs now according to the 10% unemployment rate.

Check my math, I have confused myself at this point so I may have made a glaring mistake.

A poll I saw last night said that 37% of the public felt like the worst was behind us while 56% said the worst was yet to come. If Washington would just shoot straight with us maybe we would have more confidence in them. You can't bull shit a bull shitter and I just don't buy anything that comes out of DC.

[Don T. Lukbak]

Hey, Boardman... I think Corpse Man is some kind of Zombie Superhero or something like that. I hate the other image...that of a wounded Marine on the battlefield hollering "Hey, Corpse Man! Little help?"

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by topcat19542001

I suppose if you're going to blame Obama for the high unemployment rate after being in office for a year, then one would also have to blame Reagan for the high unemployment rate in 1982 which peaked at 10.8%, which was also his first year in office.
TopCat

Blame Reagan? I couldn't find a job after graduating from college in 82 and went back to grad school. Blaming Reagan (or Carter) hasn't entered my mind in 20 years.

But that Friggin' Calvin Coolidge is another story.

[topcat19542001]

Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

"Under pressure from Wall Street, Carter reluctantly appointed Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979. Volcker had been under secretary of the Treasury for Richard Nixon and was then serving as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. However, it is naïve to think that Volcker was given a free hand by Carter. His inability to fully implement a tight-money policy is why the inflation rate fell only to 12.5 percent in 1980, despite a sharp recession that year.

It was only after the election, when Volcker knew that Carter had lost, that he really clamped down on the money supply. This illustrates an important point: Presidents get the Fed policy they want, no matter how “independent” the Fed may be. If there had been any doubt about this, it was settled in 1967, when Fed chairman William McChesney Martin buckled under pressure from Lyndon Johnson and eased monetary policy even though Martin knew he should have tightened it. This caused inflation to jump from 3 percent in 1967 to 4.7 percent in 1968 and 6.2 percent in 1969.

It is not now remembered how much pressure there was on Reagan to get rid of Volcker and have the Fed run a more accommodative monetary policy. Yet he not only supported Volcker publicly, he appointed like-minded people to the Fed whenever he had the chance. He reappointed Volcker to the chairmanship in 1983 and appointed Alan Greenspan to replace him in 1987."

from http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0406140846.asp

The point, however, is that the high national unemployment in Reagan's first term was an unavoidable consequence of tight monetary policy, the only known way to squeeze double digit inflation out of the system. Reagan policies also caused depression-era levels of unemployment here in Houston twenty-five years ago when he induced the Saudis to glut the oil market to the detriment of the Soviet economy. I almost went broke from that, and many of my friends did go broke, but it was in a good cause: economic warfare against our sworn enemy (then), the friggin' commies. So, yeah, Ronaldus' policies did create unemployment...for the sake of the greater good: stopping inflation and commies.

Now what greater good does Obama pursue with his unemployment-engendering policies? Spread the wealth around? The only greater good I can envision is entirely within his own mind: the destruction of capitalism. Either that, or he's a fucking idiot.

Then why does Volcker support the president?
TC

[Houston65]

Originally Posted by boardman

I think RP is a good man. I just have a hard time getting past his delivery. Seriously, I know it may sound dumb on my part but he is just too whiney.

I personally think Newt would make a great President. He doesn't have the military experience but then again Ronald Reagan's Military experience was no better than what "W" had.

If you want a true "warrior statesman" I can think of non-better than Ollie North. Now there is a man who understands Loyalty, Duty, Honor, Country and the troops absolutely love him. In the past few years he has also become quite the communicator.

He sounds whiney, that's just him. Newt? Are you kidding? Newt did more to sell this country out than most people know. He is a socialist as well. I don't know why people like this socialism stuff. I like liberty and freedom and want the government (federal, state and local) out of my business. Government does not know what is best for me and I am sick of paying for the people that don't want to work. I would just watching a short video of "The Real Newt Gingrich". You can google it and probably get it at jbs.org

[pyramider]

Obama gave a speech?

[Guest021010-2]

Originally Posted by pyramider

Obama gave a speech?

No, it was not a speech.
A speech includes new information, a new slant, perhaps a new direction or initiative. bho by oratory digression tried to energize a liberal socialist big government pep rally at the expense of the conservatives and the SCOTUS.

The only thing new in the obaminable oration was the unprecedented attack against the SCOTUS. How utterly arrogant and ill-timed.

It is OK for one branch of the government to criticize another, but not in the SOTU address. NO. It was not a speech -- but an exercise in arrogance.

IMNSHO,

rr

[butt_her]

Originally Posted by pyramider
Obama gave a speech?

Originally Posted by randyrogue

No, it was not a speech.
A speech includes new information, a new slant, perhaps a new direction or initiative.
rr

just cuious but, where did you get that definition!?



you guys are TFF

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by butt_her

where did you get that definition!?

Well, you do have a point ...

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...y/entry/speech

"a.The faculty or act of speaking.
b.The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words."

He did engage in the "act of speaking" .... although as yet it is uncertain

as to exactly whose "thoughts, feelings, or perceptions" he was expressing!

After all I think the teleprompters were working ...

[butt_her]

rr said it was not a speech.....what was it then?

you guys are too easy, you know that, right?

Do you make this up as you go or is there a script?

LMAO

[Guest021010-2]

Originally Posted by butt_her

rr said it was not a speech.....what was it then?

you guys are too easy, you know that, right?

Do you make this up as you go or is there a script?

LMAO

It is a personal opinion that a SOTUA should possess the qualities I stated.

It is a personal opinion that just because one is uttering words does not mean that he is saying anything worth hearing, i.e. making a speech. By your banter in this thread you have uttered words, but would anyone really call it a SPEACH?

What were bho's utterances? They were a rehash of his campaign speeches, which may have been worthwhile statements of vision in the campaign. It is one thing to paint broad strokes on the canvas in the run-up to the primaries. But what were once speeches have long since become cliches and lost their significance as 'speeches.'
bho has tunnel vision regards a socialized health care system. He is self-destructing his presidency and the party's standing on this single plank of the platform.

As for being easy, being out front makes me an easy target for pea-shooters. And you are shooting peas, not bullets, nor even pebbles.

You have no ideas of your own, no values or principles upon which to base opinions, and seek satisfaction in taking pot shots.
You are lame, predictable, almost pathetic.
Go suck you thumb.

rr

[boardman]

Ok, please disregard the posting about the unemployment rate. I had the numbers wrong. It still doesn't mean I trust the numbers coming out of Washington.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by Houston65

He sounds whiney, that's just him. Newt? Are you kidding? Newt did more to sell this country out than most people know. He is a socialist as well. I don't know why people like this socialism stuff. I like liberty and freedom and want the government (federal, state and local) out of my business. Government does not know what is best for me and I am sick of paying for the people that don't want to work. I would just watching a short video of "The Real Newt Gingrich". You can google it and probably get it at jbs.org

The video was interesting but I have a hard time believing that Newt gets his political Ideology from the Communist Manifesto and Toffler. Just that suggestion kind of makes me suspect of the rest of the video. It's easy to point at the unintended consequences of a persons good intentions and label them incorrectly. I don't know that I agree with any politician 100% so I have 2 choices. Run for office myself(I have way too many skeletons) or support a candidate that best represents what I believe is right for America and that I believe can win and do the things I want done.

I agree 100% about getting government out of our lives. I want to have the final say in what I think is best for me and my family and I despise anyone that would tell me they know better than I do what that is. Where the hell does bho get off telling me not to go to Vegas or not to watch cable news. What an arrogant bastard he is and yet somehow his family and his personal life are somehow off limits.

I like a lot of Ron Paul's politics but I'm not sure he can win with his isolationist ideas. So I am faced with a tough decision in 2012. For example: I may agree with Ron Paul on most issues but at this point I don't think that he can win as an independant or third party candidate. So, do I cast my vote for him and take it away from Newt thus allowing bho another term or do I vote for the candidate that I believe can win and while he isn't a better representative of my political views he is better than bho by a long shot. That's what happened with Ross Perot. He took enough votes away from 41 to allow Clinton in the White House.

[beerman]

Politics is politics guys. Obama has to play the game to get things done (if possible).

Letting the big guys donate all they want? they only have one motive and responsibility and that is to make money for the company.

The insurance reform will never happen unitil our back is to the wall and even the politicians that get all their campaign money from them realize something has to be done..

I and the wife had to pay 1700./mo for insurance and we are both healthy. How long folks? I'll bet those who are against the reforms are not in this boat.