And it is worthless with the internet now. The future is in broadband and the next technology. HSR stopped making sense in the U.S. in 1995. It is a silly (and very expensive) proposition. Even most civil engineers will say it makes no sense outside of the eastern corridor. Where the $&#^ is someone from Boise going to take HSR to?

ccrunner609;653283 wrote:I am watching the address. He has been good but mainly blowing smoke.

I cannot believe he was still talking about high speed rail. His comment about earmarks got a laugh.

He got crickets when he talked about tax cuts for the top 2%

That's the President's job isn't it? To blow smoke up the public's ass while the government goes ahead and does whatever it wants.

ccrunner609;653317 wrote:HSR is a pipedream

Why?
If China, South Korea and Japan can have it why not us? Hell, even Europe has it.
If Russia can make, link the trans Siberian railroad over a century ago, why not us with HSR.

Who said Boise?

Shit, I'd be happy with it in the eastern corridor.

Manhattan Buckeye;653321 wrote:And it is worthless with the internet now. The future is in broadband and the next technology. HSR stopped making sense in the U.S. in 1995. It is a silly (and very expensive) proposition. Even most civil engineers will say it makes no sense outside of the eastern corridor. Where the $&#^ is someone from Boise going to take HSR to?

Which many Republican and Democrats aren't willing to protect with real network neutrality rules.

ptown_trojans_1;653326 wrote:Why?
If China, South Korea and Japan can have it why not us? Hell, even Europe has it.
If Russia can make, link the trans Siberian railroad over a century ago, why not us with HSR.

Cultural. Americans are not going to give up their car. Lets say you take a HSR on a trip. You'll have to rent a car at the end anyway, might as well drive. You aren't going to have a HSR for any trips further than 300, maybe 400 miles. If you're going to need a car at the end, easier and probably cheaper to just drive.

ccrunner609;653283 wrote:I am watching the address. He has been good but mainly blowing smoke.

I cannot believe he was still talking about high speed rail. His comment about earmarks got a laugh.

He got crickets when he talked about tax cuts for the top 2%

The Joint Chiefs were pissed when he brought up Gays in the Military.

Did he say anything aboyt Gun Control?

LJ;653507 wrote:Did he say anything aboyt Gun Control?

Nope, wasn't in the remarks I read.

Little Danny;653337 wrote:The Joint Chiefs were pissed when he brought up Gays in the Military.

Yeah I noticed that too- those guys looked like they wanted to fight someone.

The speech itself I could care less about- lots of fluff and lots of applause. The Prez definitely sounded more moderate, but after two years with a majority in both Houses, we know on which sided his ideals and visions for America fall- way left.

One thing I was curious about was the media's response, since they inevitably shape the opinions of viewers who don't know squat about politics. Was watching NBC (the network- no I don't have cable ) and they were talking about Paul Ryan's response (which was good) and they were making a big deal about Michele Bachmann's response on behalf of the Tea Party, like she was out to compete with Ryan and try to one-up him and it was pissing off establishment R's. Brian Williams was talking to Joe Scarborough, who basically said Dems were pleased that Bachmann was creating strife within conservative ranks, and also said that her R colleagues were upset with her.

Then they actually interview her at the end of their broadcast (for about two minutes), and she basically exposes these clowns for the idiots that they are, that she was asked to address Tea Partiers in response to the SOTU speech, that she was not out to compete with Paul Ryan, and that she notified and had the support of top ranking R's in Congress. But no NBC, nevermind the facts, you idiots can't pass up an opportunity to once again ridicule the Tea Party (liberalism's worst nightmare) and trash an intelligent conservative woman (who also happens to look good ) and create the (false) impression that R's are divided and there's dissension in the ranks.

Nice commentary idiots.

jhay78;653539 wrote:Yeah I noticed that too- those guys looked like they wanted to fight someone.

The speech itself I could care less about- lots of fluff and lots of applause. The Prez definitely sounded more moderate, but after two years with a majority in both Houses, we know on which sided his ideals and visions for America fall- way left.

One thing I was curious about was the media's response, since they inevitably shape the opinions of viewers who don't know squat about politics. Was watching NBC (the network- no I don't have cable ) and they were talking about Paul Ryan's response (which was good) and they were making a big deal about Michele Bachmann's response on behalf of the Tea Party, like she was out to compete with Ryan and try to one-up him and it was pissing off establishment R's. Brian Williams was talking to Joe Scarborough, who basically said Dems were pleased that Bachmann was creating strife within conservative ranks, and also said that her R colleagues were upset with her.

Then they actually interview her at the end of their broadcast (for about two minutes), and she basically exposes these clowns for the idiots that they are, that she was asked to address Tea Partiers in response to the SOTU speech, that she was not out to compete with Paul Ryan, and that she notified and had the support of top ranking R's in Congress. But no NBC, nevermind the facts, you idiots can't pass up an opportunity to once again ridicule the Tea Party (liberalism's worst nightmare) and trash an intelligent conservative woman (who also happens to look good ) and create the (false) impression that R's are divided and there's dissension in the ranks.

Nice commentary idiots.

I like to watch and compare the media response as well. I flipped between Fox, MSNBC and CNN. I noticed what you noticed about trying to pit a divisive Republican party and that the more progressive networks were building up the Tea Party Response. Ironically, FOX, the network that probably had the most Republican viewership, did not even show Bachman's speech live. They were showing Frank Luntz and his focus group.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_on_re_us/us_reid_earmarks

Nothing will ever change. The President accepts a proposal from the Rs to ban earmarks and Reid tells Obama to suck it. I have to laugh at Reid saying that the President has enough power already and won't give up this one. Hello, pot meet kettle.

Barack Obama's top ally in the Senate Tuesday brusquely rejected the president's call for a ban on the practice of stuffing home state projects known as earmarks into spending bills.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the president "has enough power already" and that Obama's reported embrace Tuesday night of an earmark ban promoted by Republicans is just a "lot of pretty talk."


The earmark ban is one of the few areas where Obama and tea party activists are in agreement, but Reid said the idea unfairly "takes power away from the legislative branch of government. And I think that's the wrong thing to do."

God forbid we take away some of the massive power that Congress now controls.

ptown_trojans_1;653326 wrote:Why?
If China, South Korea and Japan can have it why not us? Hell, even Europe has it.
If Russia can make, link the trans Siberian railroad over a century ago, why not us with HSR.

Apples to oranges on all counts. The only way HSR would "fly" in this country is if we make it irresistibly inexpensive to damned near free to use and/or outlaw the automobile.

I can almost see HSR being modestly profitable from DC to Philly, Philly to NY, and NY to Boston. The rest of the country....not so much.

Didn't watch the speech, but caught a little bit of Ryan before hitting the sack. That lad is gonna be a superstar someday.

Nice waste of time Obama ... When Obama got to the oil part of the speech and moved into Green energy ... I knew that everything said before and everything said after that was just ..Smoke and Mirrors. The agenda did change just the performance did. I turned to the Ohio State game at half time.... Bucks look very good...

Listening to Obama what I was hearing was a guy who knew his administration is in trouble and his next two years will be a campaign trail for reelection.

Obama back is against the wall and he knows it… GOP needs to put the full court press on this guy, his agenda, the bills that the last Congress passed and the Obama administration. Obama is in defeat mode and will do anything in the next two years to regain the highest Public Servant Office in American. The campaign has begun..


Note: The HSR will work if done correctly. The only real area to create such a HSR is to follow the existing State Expressway and Turnpike roads.
I love the usage of the Chicago and NY subway system, I enjoyed the train in Europe also.

fish82;653821 wrote:Didn't watch the speech, but caught a little bit of Ryan before hitting the sack. That lad is gonna be a superstar someday.

IF he can stop sucking up air through his nose in between sentences. That annoyed the hell outta me!

I liked the promise he made about vetoeing earmark-laden bills. Let's hope that actually happens!

I was a little confused about his talk of fairness of taxation, but then later he brings up nailing the top 2% of the richest Americans. If he's REALLY wanting to talk about fairness, he would stop hamming on that 2% and start looking at maybe getting rid of earned income credit. After all everybody should feel the pinch, right? In the interest of "fairness"? If one group shouldn't be allowed to step outside of the tax code for perks, then the other shouldn't be able to, either.
But he's exactly right, we DO need a new tax code, hopefully one that is "fair" across the board.

All in all, there was some things that I liked and some things that just irked me. Which is the usual.

Point of interest: I remember growing up my family all watching the tv when the President gave The Address. Now I see so many people acting like their eyes will burn out if they watch it. I just think that goes to show the lack of interest dovetails in with complacency.

I'd like to see what (if anything) comes of the "simplifying the tax code" for both individuals and businesses

CenterBHSFan;653838 wrote:I liked the promise he made about vetoeing earmark-laden bills. Let's hope that actually happens!

I was a little confused about his talk of fairness of taxation, but then later he brings up nailing the top 2% of the richest Americans. If he's REALLY wanting to talk about fairness, he would stop hamming on that 2% and start looking at maybe getting rid of earned income credit. After all everybody should feel the pinch, right? In the interest of "fairness"? If one group shouldn't be allowed to step outside of the tax code for perks, then the other shouldn't be able to, either.
But he's exactly right, we DO need a new tax code, hopefully one that is "fair" across the board.

All in all, there was some things that I liked and some things that just irked me. Which is the usual.

Point of interest: I remember growing up my family all watching the tv when the President gave The Address. Now I see so many people acting like their eyes will burn out if they watch it. I just think that goes to show the lack of interest dovetails in with complacency.

If you make above $40-50,000 your tax cut is $909. If your income is above $1,000,000 your tax cut is $103,835.

I agree we need a new tax code, but do you want one that is "fair" across the board or equal across the board? Because "fair" wouldn't always be equal.

I like aspects of both the flat tax and the fair tax. I'm not sure which one I favor more.
And I've always thought EIC was a crock of puckey.

*EDIT

I know fair doesn't always mean equal. But, who gets to arbitrarily define equal or fair? The IRS?
Is it really fair to look at a bunch of numbers and determine what's fair or equal, when there's nothing to determine what else has gone on?

I Wear Pants;653995 wrote:If you make above $40-50,000 your tax cut is $909. If your income is above $1,000,000 your tax cut is $103,835.

I agree we need a new tax code, but do you want one that is "fair" across the board or equal across the board? Because "fair" wouldn't always be equal.

The guy making a Million and his ilk are already footing 25-30% of the nation's tax burden, despite their share of total income being significantly less than that. There is no reasonable way to spin that as "unfair." None.

I Wear Pants;653995 wrote:If you make above $40-50,000 your tax cut is $909. If your income is above $1,000,000 your tax cut is $103,835.

I agree we need a new tax code, but do you want one that is "fair" across the board or equal across the board? Because "fair" wouldn't always be equal.

I don’t want a tax code that will punish the producer and reward the not producers.
At what point in our history does achievement get short change and those who reap entitlements get off?

New tax code: is simple everyone pays taxes …rich, middle class, poor and welfare.
How much? Is there a difference between one American citizen and other? Is there a difference between a Black, Asia, Spanish or White American that one should have a different tax code? Should a male or female be on a different tax code than some who is gay?
What equal rights pay equal taxes…. What entitlement pay your share … you are an American right.

fish82;654027 wrote:The guy making a Million and his ilk are already footing 25-30% of the nation's tax burden, despite their share of total income being significantly less than that. There is no reasonable way to spin that as "unfair." None.

That's untrue. Their share of the total income is significantly higher than that.

I Wear Pants;654078 wrote:That's untrue. Their share of the total income is significantly higher than that.

That's their share of income growth, not their share of total AGI. You're thinking of the "rich keep getting richer" talking point.

Try this instead. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

As the data below show, incomes reported by tax returns at the high end of the income spectrum plummeted from 2007 to 2008, as did their share of the nation's income and income taxes paid. In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—were their lowest since 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The numbers for the "Super Rich" are no better.

For the past few years, the IRS has also been presenting data on a small subset of the top 1 percent, the top 0.1 percent (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). In 2008, this top 0.1 percent filed 140,000 tax returns, reporting nearly 10 percent of all adjusted gross income earned and paying approximately 18.5 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes.

Ah, you are right there. My bad, I need to read more effectively. Though it really isn't a talking point as much as it's an actual occurance. This could be and likely is for other reasons then the rich are eeeeeeeeeevvvvvvilll but anyways.

Like I said, you're right there.