State of The Union Address

by Gregory Hosono | January 25th @ 3:09 am

Don't Miss Out on the Conversation!

Signup is free and takes seconds. Don't be out of the loop on what's going on — we are here to help out young entrepreneurs discover things that they never knew.

gregory January 25th @ 3:09 am

State of The Union Address

Regardless of your political affiliations, what did you think of President Obama's thoughts on innovation, entrepreneurship, and education?

sean January 25th @ 4:43 pm

I thought his support for Entrepreneurship was exactly what I wanted to hear. Though many people may have differing views on politics, I think he has good meaning. Nobody said being president in the current time would be easy.

But at least he's willing to pay the taxes he needs unlike the others in the 1%.

jeremyt January 26th @ 3:53 am

I thought it was a great speech. I just wish I still had the trust in him to assume what he says he will do, he will do.

That being said, you would still be crazy to vote for Romney or Gingrich.

gregory January 27th @ 2:03 pm

What did you think about his thoughts on entrepreneurship, innovation, and education?

jeremyt January 27th @ 3:55 pm

None of it was outstanding as something terrible, but none of it is actually going to get done.

  1. Because Obama is notorious for not being able to do the things he says

  2. There is a republican majority in congress and so anything remotely threatening to big corporations - which helping the tech industry is - will be killed. The tech industry has been relatively uncorrupted compared to others and isn't giving washington that much money. Part of why so many people in congress supported SOPA and PIPA and now the other bills is not just because they want to stop piracy or censor the internet it is because they want to force big companies like google to start making some "donations".

charlesperalo January 31st @ 3:23 am

Well I was actually at John Stossel's show when I was watching it.

Now first off on SOPA and PIPA he wants it, but knows it's almost politically impossible. We've witnessed far bigger of an industry in tech than movies. So with that nobody cares about Lady Gaga having her work put into a video which only expands here fame.

Now regarding his take on manufacturing. Absolutely the wrong approach in this. Manufacturing jobs are falling globally and US manufacturing has gone up over the last two decades. Technology is replacing those jobs and its just going to mean we come to a better place in the end.

For education his plans are one of two things. Throw more money at the problem which doesn't work. Or raise the drop out age to 18 which without question wont work. I highly doubt the majority of those drop outs will graduate passed 18. Also do you really want those kids in your school? I want people who want to learn in school.

Regarding innovation, he's 100% right in that it needs to go up, but 100% wrong in approach. Subsides, regulations and taxes are no way to do it. The answer is open immigration, school vouchers, low taxes, little regulation and ending the federal reserve.

Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!!!

jeremyt January 31st @ 7:07 am

Obviously raising the drop out age to 18 is not going to fly, but I think your reasoning is off. You're assuming all kids who drop out are doing it because of a simple reason that doesn't make them worthy of there stay in school. The point is that we should try to encourage kids who would otherwise leave school to stay. It cannot just be because someone doesn't like or want to be at school, because otherwise we would all be guilty of that.

I also don't really think you understood his tax proposals. Again, it really isn't as simple as "Obama wants higher taxes". I actually think it wasn't too bad of an idea, it's not the greatest but it's far from bad.

I think we should create startup visas, exponential tax rates, and replace world language with programming. That's just with simple regards to startups.

If we are going to stop subsidizing and spending then we need to stop the bush tax cuts, giving money to defense contractors and private prisons, treating corporations like citizens, allowing unlimited donations, end all our wars, including the Drug wars.

charlesperalo January 31st @ 8:02 pm

No look, I'm happy with them staying in school, but I don't want them there if they're going to just be unhappy due to them not being there. The better way to eliminate these problems would probably be through the voucher system to get competitive education adjusted to kids needs.

Well for taxes he clearly wants higher taxes, but can't get them. I'm positive if he could raise taxes freely he'd boom them back into the 70s like it was before Reagan.

For campaign finance reform that's alright, but it sorta hurts third parties. I'd honestly get rid of it, but have alternative voting and other platforms like that. As for the other things regarding ending subsides. Well I agree for the most part, but I'd not get rid of the bush tax cuts. I'd abolish the current tax code.

jeremyt January 31st @ 8:31 pm

But not higher taxes in general, just higher taxes depending on your income. I'm not for "high taxes" just tax fairness, if you are filthy rich there is no reason you should get a pass. The privilege of wealth should come with more responsibilities not less.

Why would you save the bush tax cuts? They are literally the worst thing the US has ever spent money on. 700 billion dollars for the richest people in the world? If someone needs a worker they will hire a worker, they don't need an extra 50k in their wallet. All economists agree it was incredibly wasteful.

charlesperalo February 1st @ 6:31 pm

Well lets not get into the debate of wealthy people paying more taxes. Lets get into the debate of who's the better spender of movie. So we constantly complain saying we let the money fall into the hands of 1% of the people. First off all of that money is earned through voluntary actions. Secondly all money government spends is decided by with the house, sentate and oval office it means less than 700 people get power over the money for 300 million. Also every government project is a failure. We don't need them spending any money, because those resources they take from people will go into more productive places in the private sector.

To the notion wealthy people can afford higher taxes so why not ask them for it. Well what does it matter? All it does it take their earned money and creates a decrease in incentive to work. I make 50,000 dollars and pay 10% of my income in taxes. So I earn more and end up playing 15% of my income at 100,000 dollars. So I end up making twice and much and paying three times as much when I get the same product in the end.

Than to the Bush tax cuts, they didn't cost the US anything. Saying that would imply the US owns every dollar. So they just decided to lower prices on there product and couldn't cut cost.

jeremyt February 2nd @ 1:48 pm

RE: State of The Union Address

It's not about going after the rich, it's the fact that in this government the rich are unfairly benefited. Also the Bush Taxes collectively cost over a trillion dollars.

As for your notion of paying more, that's sort of how percentages work. That would be like saying since when I make 100,000 at 10% taxes I'm paying twice as much taxes as when I'm making 50,000. That's sort of the point.

There's is no justifiable reason that in this economic turmoil the rich have seen a monetary growth of over 200% while millions of Americans were laid off.

charlesperalo February 1st @ 6:32 pm

Also to balancing the budget, I say cut spending 90%.

tyvanzo February 1st @ 8:28 pm

RE: State of The Union Address

Not as easy as it sounds....what programs/spending would you cut specifically?

jeremyt February 2nd @ 1:42 pm

RE: State of The Union Address

There needs to be spending cuts, not 90% spending cuts. That would slash more way too much. More than 10% of what we spend money on is worthy of it.

charlesperalo February 6th @ 3:13 am

I'm going to say cut the budget 90%. Cut the military budget 50% and eliminated all foreign aid and bases. Abolish all welfare and social security programs or make them totally optional. Than eliminate most of the big departments. A budget of 500 billion is more than enough to feed the federal government.

All it does it put money in more productive places.