Local members of Congress who sit on opposite sides of the political aisle found areas of agreement in address Tuesday, but their initial reaction was very different.
heard a strong vision for the country from the President, while thought Obama was offering campaign themes in his speech. “It was more of a political speech than a State of the Union,” Dold said.
Schakowsky, who has been a strong supporter of the President since he first ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, heard a leader with a plan for progress who will act by executive order if necessary.
“The President laid out a vision for real progress for working with the Republicans,” Schakowsky said. “If they obstruct what needs to be done he indicated he will act alone (with executive orders).”
Changes Proposed to Tax Code
One of the major ingredients of the President’s proposals is revising the tax laws so billionaires like Warren Buffett will not pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than a secretary.
“Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes,” Obama said in the speech. “If you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up.”
Schakowsky, , applauded the President’s idea. “It’s clear we’re going to have to address the unfairness in the tax code," she said. “Each of us has to play by the same rules.”
Dold wanted more information on the President’s ideas on changes to the tax laws before forming an opinion. “Everything is on the table,” Dold said. “But I have to know what he means. What income is he taxing at 30 percent?”
Schakowsky and Dold liked what they heard about public-private partnerships to prepare people for jobs. The President described cooperation between Siemens and a community college in North Carolina. Schakowsky and Dold both cited local examples.
“Oakton Community College has been developing important programs with nanotechnology,” Schakowsky said. “They are doing a good job of preparing people for 21st century jobs.”
Dold has been praising the efforts of Wheeling High School and other local institutions to promote STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education for nearly a year. He believes it brings more jobs to the area.
“I was pleased to hear him talk about STEM education. We need more local opportunities for education now in Lake County,” Dold said. “We have opportunities for jobs here that won’t be pulled to Ohio or Iowa,” he added, referring to efforts between a business in Waukegan and the College of Lake County.
President Calls for Smart Regulation
Though Schakowsky and Dold may agree on the need for appropriate regulation, they received different messages when the President discussed the subject.
“We need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior,” the President said in the speech. “Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don’t destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.”
Dold liked what he heard on the subject and said he would work with members of both parties for smart regulation. “The first bill I introduced was about dumping,” he said.
Schakowsky credits the President with wiping out unnecessary regulations, but criticized Republican efforts to eliminate requirements that she believes harm the environment.
“He has already done that, 500 rules have been removed” Schakowsky said. “The House has passed bills that get rid of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations that keep our water clean and our food safe,” she added referring to action she considers harmful by the Republican majority.
Mr. Hall, I could care less what you or anybody else calls me (or thinks of me), but when one side in a debate resorts to name-calling, it means that they lost the debate. I concur that much in your posts is childish and immature. If you prefer to be childish and immature, be my guest.
No, the white elephant in the room is that President Obama's economic policies have failed to turn the economy around. (13 million unemployed; 46 million using food stamps) Obamacare is a failure. The Stimulus of 2009 is a failure. The President just turned down the Keystone XL pipeline, even though there are no environmental problems with the pipeline. (The State of Nebraska has oil pipelines all over it right now-any environmental problems with those existing pipelines? Nope.) Some folks like to use the word "hatred" for conservatives' views of President Obama. It's not "hatred", it's because the President's policies are failures. President Carter is quite pleased with President Obama-President Carter no longer holds the title of the worst president and President Obama has only been in office for 3 years. President Obama is governing against the will of the people. Simply because you win an election doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. The president is the CEO of the country-if you can't get the job done, "you're fired". President Obama has no executive skills-all he does is say one thing and then does another. The Chicago-style of governing is a failure-Chicago is going the way of Detroit. Why would we want to bring Chicago-style gov't to the entire nation?
Mr. Hall, please list those killed in the name of religion.
Yes, President Obama is governing against the will of the people (e.g., Obamacare, Keystone XL pipeline, oil/gas exploration in Ohio; oil/gas leases in the Gulf; tax increases). The American people overwhelming believe that America is on the "wrong track". The results of the 2010 election clearly demonstrate that this is the case-the 2010 election was a landslide Republican victory. Sorry Mr. Hall, but "facts are stubborn things".
Socialism destroys everything it touches. Europe is just the latest example of the destructiveness of socialism. President Obama is a socialist, and, as you can see, the US economy is being destroyed. The unemployment rate in Illinois rose in 2011 thanks to the tax increase. Illinois' finances have not improved despite the tax increase. Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, the state's budget is in surplus due to Governor Walker's reforms. Governor Walker changed a deficit into a surplus. Imagine that. And now, Mr. Hall wants to discuss my mother. . . .I suppose that immature and childish are the best he can do. If it makes you feel better, hurl insults at my mother too.
PS - 3,000 or so killed on our soil on 9/11. Revenge for religious war which began with the Crusades. Salem Witch Trials should be right up there in any political polemicist's dark alley. Ever hear of the Inquisition? How about that Mountain Meadows Massacre? I'm having a lot of difficulty with you Mr K. You seem to be far more well read than I, yet the ideas you articulate aren't coming across as coherent or expressed in a way to which I'm familiar and have often associated with scholars it's been my pleasure to know.
24. Antietam, Pennsylvania (American Civil War: 1-3 July 1863): 6 300 Last I checked, isn't Sharpsburg still in Maryland, and that battle about a year earlier than Gettyburg? You've told me a lot about how you acquired your professorial arrogance. Ooops.
“Ever heard of the Crusades, Mr Krudop? Hitler killed Jews, Mr. Krudop- those deaths weren't motivated by religious intolerance? I hope you are not saying no one has died over religious ideology.” “Pius....Pope.....Holocaust. How convenient you have a blind spot for assessing moral responsibility. I'll repeat. Religion. the leading cause of death.” “PS - 3,000 or so killed on our soil on 9/11. Revenge for religious war which began with the Crusades. Salem Witch Trials should be right up there in any political polemicist's dark alley. Ever hear of the Inquisition? How about that Mountain Meadows Massacre?” There have been millions of individuals killed in the name of religion over the centuries. Probably 3 million in the Crusades, approximately 2,000 to 30,000 during the Spanish Inquisition depending on whose number you use. The link I gave you spells out very clearly that religious wars have been devastating. Where we disagree is that religion is the leading cause of death worldwide. I would suggest that disease and non-religious based wars have probably been a greater cause of death than religious wars or religious based acts. WWII – 66 million killed. Not a religious war. Mao – 40 million killed. Not religion based. Genghis Khan – 40 million killed. Not religion based. Joseph Stalin – 20 million killed. Not religion based. WWI – 15 million killed. Not a religious war.
Reformers during the early 1990s used the initiative and referendum to put congressional term limits on the ballot in 24 states. Voters in eight of these states approved the congressional term limits by an average electoral margin of two to one.[23] In the elections of 1994, part of the Republican platform was to pass legislation setting term limits in Congress. After winning the majority, they brought a constitutional amendment to the House floor. It limited members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms. Because the Republicans held 230 seats in the House, they were able to get a simple majority. However, constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, or 290 votes (in the House), and the votes to impose term limits on Congress fell short of that number.
1) You linked me to a site you apparently use as one of your resources, and in 90 seconds I connect to a list which is factually confused and incorrect. 2) And then you save face by admitting perhaps religion is the second leading cause of death, based on numbers from your tainted source? OK, compromise (you remember what that is don't you?)... "Religion, a leading cause of death".
Now you can help me. You don't like my sources so give me your source(s) showing that religion is a leading cause of death. Hopefully those sources will be somewhat comparable to the National Institute for Health or the World Health Organization.
True, you said I admitted. My bad. I didn't admit any such thing nor did I really expect you would cite any source for your statements. I guess your backing is the same as Mammy Yokum, "I has spoken."
Describes you and Schulte to a T. Good night Granny. You're in my pipe, and I'm smokin'
Some of these sources inspire more confidence than others. Often the least authoritative sources (such as dilettantes like me or partisan propagandists) are the most accessible, while the most authoritative (serious scholars with no vested interest) are the most obscure, but I have generally accorded all sources equal weight. My intention here is not to dictate that you believe one chosen number; instead, I'm more interested in letting you see the limits of the debate -- the upper and lower estimates and the spectrum that runs between them. A useful rule of thumb is that if you are faced with a wide spread of differing estimates, it's safer to believe one from the cluster in the middle than one alone at the upper or lower edge."