Republicans respond and respond to Ob...

Republicans respond and respond to Obama State of Union

There are 103 comments on the Yahoo! story from Jan 28, 2014, titled Republicans respond and respond to Obama State of Union. In it, Yahoo! reports that:

Republicans in the U.S. Congress responded in competing voices on Tuesday to President Barack Obama's annual State of the Union address as various wings of the party vied to advance their prescriptions for the country's best way forward.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Yahoo!.

“Don't Mess With Texas ”

Level 1

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#90 Feb 3, 2014
spud wrote:
<quoted text>WTF does a computer have to do with any of that other sh!!!!t? Are you for real?
That computer did not make itself!

“Don't Mess With Texas ”

Level 1

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#91 Feb 3, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you consider honesty - you being "willfully ignorant" as a personal attack, maybe you should reconsider your own thought processes.
Anything, unions included, that grow to a point where the checks and balances are not effectively in place, will be exploited. This is simply human nature - not the nicest aspect of human nature, but nevertheless, it does exist.
However, with less than 10% of the current work force unionized, your point is now moot. It has no effect on the state of economic affairs at the current time.
You will see an influx of unionization once again if the current owners of companies continue in their current business thought - right to work, you don't like the crap I pay you, GFY, this train of thought will cause a revolt by the workforce in America.
This country is fast becoming a plutocracy - the moment you realize this, then maybe, just maybe your thought process will change.
As to free trade, one last time;
"When the North American Free Trade Agreement was first signed in 1994, proponents said it would eventually create jobs for the U.S. economy.
17 years later, a new report estimates, the American worker only has hundreds of thousands of job losses to show for it.
According to a report by Economic Policy Institute economist Robert Scott, entitled "Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA," an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs have been "lost or displaced" because of the agreement and the resulting trade deficit."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/naft...
"United States
U.S. economic winners and losers under NAFTA vary with company size, type of industry or sector, and geographical location. Sectors affected positively include planes, trains and automobiles, large agri-businesses, appliance makers and energy corporations. Clearly, large multi-national companies with investment capacities, world-market savvy and capital resources have benefited from protected investment and cheap labor. These companies enhanced management performance-based compensation while putting downward pressure on production-worker wages and benefits, collective bargaining clout and available jobs, especially in manufacturing. Many view their actions as a major contributor to compensation inequality.(To read more about how income inequality is determined, and its importance, read The Gini Index: Measuring Income Distribution.)"
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economic...
NAFTA needs to go, period. I and many machinists in the mid 90's lost our jobs due to NAFTA. We in manufacturing saw the writing on the wall when this was being proposed, and were all directly affected. If you never worked in manufacturing, you don't know this.
"However, with less than 10% of the current work force unionized, your point is now moot. It has no effect on the state of economic affairs at the current time."

Unions control some of the largest industries in American to include large parts of the government so my point is not moot! Just ask Detroit or the Post Office.

WHO SIGNED NAFTA? Do you need a quick history lesson? Blame the right people/person for job loss and hold them responsible for it! I live in NC. I saw the textile industry die in this state.

Free trade is good as long as you cut a deal that benefits you also. When CLINTON signed NAFTA he put the final nail in the coffin of manufacturing in this country and people STILL treat him like a rock star! WHY?

We need cheap energy but Obama don't like fossil fuels. So, we are stuck in this mess until he is gone and we get someone that get us back on track and sorry Hillary isn't it! Replacing a 2dn generation radical with a 1st generation radical isn't my idea of an improvement!

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#92 Feb 3, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
"However, with less than 10% of the current work force unionized, your point is now moot. It has no effect on the state of economic affairs at the current time."
Unions control some of the largest industries in American to include large parts of the government so my point is not moot! Just ask Detroit or the Post Office.
WHO SIGNED NAFTA? Do you need a quick history lesson? Blame the right people/person for job loss and hold them responsible for it! I live in NC. I saw the textile industry die in this state.
Free trade is good as long as you cut a deal that benefits you also. When CLINTON signed NAFTA he put the final nail in the coffin of manufacturing in this country and people STILL treat him like a rock star! WHY?
We need cheap energy but Obama don't like fossil fuels. So, we are stuck in this mess until he is gone and we get someone that get us back on track and sorry Hillary isn't it! Replacing a 2dn generation radical with a 1st generation radical isn't my idea of an improvement!
My God how stupid can one be.

The Post Office was a self sustaining entity, despite a union, and never took a single federal dollar to operate. Don't you even know this? the post Office is being bankrupted by a republican mandate forcing them to sustain a 75 year pension plan - no other union in HISTORY was ever forced to do this - now, a history lesson for you;

Status
This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on December 20, 2006.
Progress
Introduced Dec 07, 2006
Passed House Dec 08, 2006
Passed Senate Dec 09, 2006
Signed by the President Dec 20, 2006

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr...

"A number of factors are behind the post office’s deficit problems: More of us use e-mail and text messaging to stay in touch, driving down mail volume; private competition from carriers like UPS and FedEx has chipped away at the Post Office’s package delivery service business; and USPS processing and distribution facilities have long been considered bloated and inefficient compared to private shippers. But the biggest obstacle to postal reform, by far, is the problem of funding Congressionally mandated pre-retiree health benefits.

Since 2006, the Post Office has been legally required to pre-fund health benefits for future retirees at a cost of around $5.5 billion a year. For the first time last year, it defaulted on its annual payment.

When Congress imposed those mandates in 2006, the Post Office was doing just fine. Digital communication had yet to take such a huge bite out of the amount of mail the USPS processed and delivered. First-class mail volume was about 97 billion pieces in 2006. So there wasn’t much of a backlash when Congress decided that the Post Office was healthy enough to lock in health benefits for future retirees — for the next 75 years, mind you, something no other public or private agency does.

Two years later, the U.S. was hit by the Great Recession at around the same time that mobile communication and things like online bill payments were growing at explosive rates. The Post Office began reporting massive deficits from which it has yet to recover. Last year it delivered only 68 billion pieces of mail.

So far the Post Office has placed about $44 billion in that pre-retiree account. Without the mandate, the Post Office’s financials — while still not completely healthy — would be much more stable.

Read more: Post Office's Real Fiscal Problem: Pre-Retiree Health Benefits | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2013/02/07/how-healt...

So much for your Post Office scenario.

As to the car industry, some of what the unions did had a part to play, while the rest was self inflicted - at least at GM and Chrysler.

“Don't Mess With Texas ”

Level 1

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#93 Feb 3, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
My God how stupid can one be.
The Post Office was a self sustaining entity, despite a union, and never took a single federal dollar to operate. Don't you even know this? the post Office is being bankrupted by a republican mandate forcing them to sustain a 75 year pension plan - no other union in HISTORY was ever forced to do this - now, a history lesson for you;
Status
This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on December 20, 2006.
Progress
Introduced Dec 07, 2006
Passed House Dec 08, 2006
Passed Senate Dec 09, 2006
Signed by the President Dec 20, 2006
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr...
"A number of factors are behind the post office’s deficit problems: More of us use e-mail and text messaging to stay in touch, driving down mail volume; private competition from carriers like UPS and FedEx has chipped away at the Post Office’s package delivery service business; and USPS processing and distribution facilities have long been considered bloated and inefficient compared to private shippers. But the biggest obstacle to postal reform, by far, is the problem of funding Congressionally mandated pre-retiree health benefits.
Since 2006, the Post Office has been legally required to pre-fund health benefits for future retirees at a cost of around $5.5 billion a year. For the first time last year, it defaulted on its annual payment.
When Congress imposed those mandates in 2006, the Post Office was doing just fine. Digital communication had yet to take such a huge bite out of the amount of mail the USPS processed and delivered. First-class mail volume was about 97 billion pieces in 2006. So there wasn’t much of a backlash when Congress decided that the Post Office was healthy enough to lock in health benefits for future retirees — for the next 75 years, mind you, something no other public or private agency does.
Two years later, the U.S. was hit by the Great Recession at around the same time that mobile communication and things like online bill payments were growing at explosive rates. The Post Office began reporting massive deficits from which it has yet to recover. Last year it delivered only 68 billion pieces of mail.
So far the Post Office has placed about $44 billion in that pre-retiree account. Without the mandate, the Post Office’s financials — while still not completely healthy — would be much more stable.
Read more: Post Office's Real Fiscal Problem: Pre-Retiree Health Benefits | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2013/02/07/how-healt...
So much for your Post Office scenario.
As to the car industry, some of what the unions did had a part to play, while the rest was self inflicted - at least at GM and Chrysler.
What would you rather see, Postal workers paying for there own health care benefits or the tax payer?

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#94 Feb 3, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you rather see, Postal workers paying for there own health care benefits or the tax payer?
You obviously did not read a single link.

Which proves why you are such an illiterate moron.
liberals are heros

Urbandale, IA

#95 Feb 3, 2014
I love when conservatives bash regulations and then cry because their drinking water smells like liquerish (sp) or better yet catches on fire. They still beat the drum though that the democrats restrict way to much.....chumps.
Billy Ringo

Bronx, NY

#97 Feb 3, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
What a joke - "How many dysfunctional republicans does it take to respond to the SOTU address?"
4 responses, none with an outline or a specific agenda that differs from what the president proposed. Not one.
Shows how fractured and leaderless the republicans are.
That's all they have, man.

“Don't Mess With Texas ”

Level 1

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#98 Feb 3, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously did not read a single link.
Which proves why you are such an illiterate moron.
Obviously, you want tax payers to fund Postal worker"s retirement.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/unde...

Level 3

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#99 Feb 3, 2014
Billy Ringo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all they have, man.
Well give us a break, it wasn't much of a speech. Same-o Same-o, so other than the same lies, there is just not that much substance.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#100 Feb 3, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, you want tax payers to fund Postal worker"s retirement.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/unde...
Read your entire link. It states clearly that this 2006 measure is an equivalent to squeezing blood out of a stone.

Attempting to force a company to pre fund 75 years into the future within a 10 year period without the flexibility of restructuring is an impossibility - and will force the USPS out of business, which is what this law was in fact intended to do.

You're not a very bright bulb, are you?

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#101 Feb 3, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Well give us a break, it wasn't much of a speech. Same-o Same-o, so other than the same lies, there is just not that much substance.
O'Riley - Benghazi - same old shit.

O'Riley - IRS - debunked - again, same old shit.

Come up with relevant questions you turd.

“Don't Mess With Texas ”

Level 1

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#102 Feb 3, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Read your entire link. It states clearly that this 2006 measure is an equivalent to squeezing blood out of a stone.
Attempting to force a company to pre fund 75 years into the future within a 10 year period without the flexibility of restructuring is an impossibility - and will force the USPS out of business, which is what this law was in fact intended to do.
You're not a very bright bulb, are you?
Again, you support tax payers funding the Postal workers retirement. We have tried that with the auto unions and what did it achieve? The one time a union could run a company for its workers chose to sell its controlling stocks back to the company to shore up their retirement fund. They want to benefit for the hard choices but don't want to make the hard choices knowing they would/could bankrupt the company with all of their demands. What makes the Post Office any different?
One thing we have not mentioned is, what had just happened in Nov 2006? Republicans lost control of both houses in Congress in the mid-term. In hindsight, Democrats spent money worse then the previous Congress. At least there was a plan laid out that would not cost the taxpayers.
Responsibility

Petaluma, CA

#103 Feb 3, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text> there is just not that much substance.
Didn't watch all the republican speeches but the one who spoke about 4H was not much substance. Guess the repubians wanted to play it safe and keep out of the muddy waters of libido etc.

Level 3

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#104 Feb 3, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
O'Riley - Benghazi - same old shit.
O'Riley - IRS - debunked - again, same old shit.
Come up with relevant questions you turd.
Yep, well with all of Obama's bullchit answers of diversion, hell you have to keep asking the same question until he stops telling the same old lies. He hurt himself further last night but hey with his falling numbers, he tried to throw a hail mary..........and fumbled.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#106 Feb 3, 2014
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you support tax payers funding the Postal workers retirement. We have tried that with the auto unions and what did it achieve? The one time a union could run a company for its workers chose to sell its controlling stocks back to the company to shore up their retirement fund. They want to benefit for the hard choices but don't want to make the hard choices knowing they would/could bankrupt the company with all of their demands. What makes the Post Office any different?
One thing we have not mentioned is, what had just happened in Nov 2006? Republicans lost control of both houses in Congress in the mid-term. In hindsight, Democrats spent money worse then the previous Congress. At least there was a plan laid out that would not cost the taxpayers.
Why don't you stop deflecting and answer the question posed to you?

If you can't, or won't answer, then just shut up and move on.

Level 3

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#107 Feb 4, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you stop deflecting and answer the question posed to you?
If you can't, or won't answer, then just shut up and move on.
hahahahaha potty calling chamber pot black.

“Hicksville Hootenanny”

Since: Sep 13

Kornfield Kounty

#108 Feb 4, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
O'Riley - Benghazi - same old shit.
O'Riley - IRS - debunked - again, same old shit.
Come up with relevant questions you turd.
And murditch had to write that for him. LMAO.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#109 Feb 4, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>hahahahaha potty calling chamber pot black.
Have you had an enema recently Dumbo? it might clear your head up.

Level 3

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#110 Feb 4, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you had an enema recently Dumbo? it might clear your head up.
I love it when you copy my phrases......proving once again you can't compete on your own right child.
Billy Ringo

United States

#111 Feb 4, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Well give us a break, it wasn't much of a speech. Same-o Same-o, so other than the same lies, there is just not that much substance.
And I am sure you listened to every word - and also recorded it so you can play it back as an example as how a POTUS is supposed to deliver a State of the Union.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!!!!
IT'S A SLAM DUNK !!!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What Should Citizenship Mean? 13 min xxxrayted 71
News Obama not taking immigration fight to Supreme C... 29 min wild child 6
News Immigration activists vow Republicans will rue ... 47 min Who guessed it 1
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 50 min quetzalcoatl 138,213
News Time for Republican obsession with border secur... 51 min Memo From Turner 6
News ACLU Waging Total Lawfare on Hapless PA Town Tr... 1 hr Who guessed it 7
News Appeals Court Rejects Plan to Let Obama Immigra... 1 hr Anonymous 17
More from around the web