Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 93 Posts

·
Registered
1973 450 SL
Joined
·
5,453 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Previews say that Obama will speak of investments. I believe that he is speaking about Chinese investments in our deficit this year.

Let's be clear. An nvestment is a financial expenditure based on an anticipated financial rate of return with preservation of principal. Federal spending on local education is just that--spending, 85% of which goes into teachers pockets. It's gone. No financial rate of return for the taxpayers. Cash out. Principal squandered.

The use of the word "investments" is an old semantic gimmick by the Democrats to shade meaning into the behavior of "spending." BTDT, over and over. They think we are still too dumb to notice.
 

·
Premium Member
U took the old religion from the woman on the hill.
Joined
·
43,662 Posts
The problem is bigger than Republicans and Democrats.
 

·
Registered
1991 300 SE
Joined
·
18,534 Posts
Or, the problem is Democrats and Republicans.

United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…


Unfortunate something so straightforward got twisted and perverted into partisan politics.
 

·
Administratoris Emeritus
2021 SL770
Joined
·
46,416 Posts
The use of the word "investments" is an old semantic gimmick by the Democrats to shade meaning into the behavior of "spending." BTDT, over and over. They think we are still too dumb to notice.
As is the phrase "national defense" to the GOP, to shade the behavior of "global hegemony". What's your point?
 

·
Registered
'74 & '78 450 SEL
Joined
·
9,143 Posts
The State of the Union speech has been an embarrassment to the U.S. for decades. Except that some people are too lacking in shame to be embarrassed by this dog and pony (or should I say donkey and elephant) show.

It's the epitome of symbolism over substance and every single person who participates in the charade acts like a child. And the media eats it all up with their in depth analysis of everything that was said and what was not said and how it was said (or not) and who applauded and who sat on their hands and who gave a standing ovation and what looks were people wearing on their faces, and now, for the first time ever, who is sitting next to who, and why.

In the end, it's a speech that you could read the transcript of in less than two minutes yet it's stretched out over an agonizing hour or more.

But it won't be done. We get to listen to the reporter tell us, in detail, and verbatim, what we just heard and saw - as if we missed it.

Finally, when it's really over, we get to see the "response" by the Party that is (apparently) opposed to the content of what was just said. Followed by reporters again telling us what we just saw and heard.




I'll be missing it again this year. As usual, I plan to be busy doing something else. Anything else.
 

·
Registered
1991 300 SE
Joined
·
18,534 Posts
It certainly doesn’t need such media saturation – C-SPAN could carry it along with PBS for a digital broadcast. Indeed, the Framers’ original intent was it be done ‘from time to time,’ not every year and some sort of ‘equal time’ ‘rebuttal’ is completely pointless.

Happy Australia Day, Ross; as for Triple J's 'Hottest 100' of 2010, that sounds like a pop nightmare.
 

·
Registered
'74 & '78 450 SEL
Joined
·
9,143 Posts
As is the phrase "national defense" to the GOP, to shade the behavior of "global hegemony". What's your point?

Just the opposite.

National Defense is exactly what it says it is, by both original and current definition. The words are value neutral and Democrats and Republicans use them alike to mean the same thing.

Similarly, "spending" is the correct word (by both original and current definition), the word is value neutral (simply meaning "expenditures" in any economic context) and both Democrats and Republicans use them alike to mean the same thing.

That is, until recently, when the word "investments" began to be used as a euphemism for "spending". Not only is this inaccurate (since the sole purpose of investments is to bring an economic return) but it implies inherent virtuousness.

That's not to say Republicans don't ever engage in euphemisms themselves on such occasions when they believe they can get away with it, but, as they say, two wrongs don't make a right. And at this moment we're seeing the Democrats doing it, so it's time to call BS.
 

·
Registered
'74 & '78 450 SEL
Joined
·
9,143 Posts
Previews say that Obama will speak of investments. I believe that he is speaking about Chinese investments in our deficit this year.

Let's be clear. An nvestment is a financial expenditure based on an anticipated financial rate of return with preservation of principal. Federal spending on local education is just that--spending, 85% of which goes into teachers pockets. It's gone. No financial rate of return for the taxpayers. Cash out. Principal squandered.

The use of the word "investments" is an old semantic gimmick by the Democrats to shade meaning into the behavior of "spending." BTDT, over and over. They think we are still too dumb to notice.

Personally, I'd kind of prefer to use the euphemism "investment" in place of the word "spending". It'd make make me feel better every week when I get my paycheck to invest it rather than spend it.

Invest in my rent
Invest in my utilities
Invest in food and household supplies
Invest in gas for my car
Invest in miscellaneous repairs
And so on. . . .


I'm going to be rich when the return from all these investments come in.
 

·
Administratoris Emeritus
2021 SL770
Joined
·
46,416 Posts
Just the opposite.

National Defense is exactly what it says it is, by both original and current definition. The words are value neutral and Democrats and Republicans use them alike to mean the same thing.

Similarly, "spending" is the correct word (by both original and current definition), the word is value neutral (simply meaning "expenditures" in any economic context) and both Democrats and Republicans use them alike to mean the same thing.

That is, until recently, when the word "investments" began to be used as a euphemism for "spending". Not only is this inaccurate (since the sole purpose of investments is to bring an economic return) but it implies inherent virtuousness.

That's not to say Republicans don't ever engage in euphemisms themselves on such occasions when they believe they can get away with it, but, as they say, two wrongs don't make a right. And at this moment we're seeing the Democrats doing it, so it's time to call BS.
Erm, national defense has arguably not been actively employed by our country for more than 60 years.
 

·
Registered
vintage
Joined
·
14,512 Posts
It's being broadcast live on many TV and radio channels in the UK and the word is that he'll focus on the level of unemployment (9.4% or so, isn't it?). Today our ONS announced our economy contracted 0.5% in Q4 2010, so we're all facing tough times for the foreseeable future, but frankly WGAS?
 

·
Registered
'74 & '78 450 SEL
Joined
·
9,143 Posts
Erm, national defense has arguably not been actively employed by our country for more than 60 years.

If we're strictly talking national defense, then 200 years is probably more accurate. ;) Most libertarians would argue we had no business attacking Germany in WWII and that Japan would have left us alone if we hadn't been mucking around in their part of the globe in the first place. :D
 

·
Banned
a device that is designed or used to transport people or cargo.
Joined
·
14,116 Posts
why would anyone give up enslaving the rest of the world in favor of investing in roads, bridges, renewable energy, schools ... geez ... bunch a dweebs ...
 

·
Registered
'74 & '78 450 SEL
Joined
·
9,143 Posts
Excerpt from SOTU speech, 2010:




Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.




Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address | The White House
 

·
Registered
'01-E320 & 02-ST2
Joined
·
31,633 Posts
By recommendation of a few folks in another thread, I've decided instead to rent "Winter Bone" and watch that.

The way I figure, if I'm going to watch fiction, it should at least be entertaining. :rolleyes: :D
 

·
Registered
'74 & '78 450 SEL
Joined
·
9,143 Posts
1 - 20 of 93 Posts
Top