The US State of the Union message for 2011: Thoughts and Commentary

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Here is a link to the full text. HERE (http://www.scribd.com/doc/47568616/State-of-the-Union-2011-Full-Text)


Opening thought:

While lacking some of the compelling rhetorical style of Reagan, I thought the speech one of the easiest to listen to and draw a good theme from in quite a while. I also thought President Obama charted a useful course of action for legislation and government improvement. It will be interesting to see how much depth lies behind these ideas.

Thoughts from others?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Very Good speech. I also really liked Ryan's response. I hated the last state of the union and the response

[a completely inoffensive name]

Very Good speech. I also really liked Ryan's response. I hated the last state of the union and the response

Who could not like Bobby Jindal?

[Major Robert Dump]

The Tea Party response from Michelle "The founding fathers abolished slavery" Bachman was epic. She compared tea party founders to the marines of Iwo Jima.

This may be the very first SOTU I have ever watched in its entirity, but to be honest it was merely because I was bored and there was a tv in the room. It really means a whole lot of nothing, but I certainly got a kick that he mentioned dependance on foreign oil like every president in every SOTU since Ike. Gotta keep the tradition going afterall.

[Xiahou]

Investing in clean energy, education, and infrastructure.... where did I hear that before.... Oh, now I remember (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Act).:idea2:


Edit: This (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_on_re_us/us_reid_earmarks) was pretty good too.

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."

[Strike For The South]

Gutless
Dog and Pony show
The final death kneel to the American middle class
A carte blanche to coropartism
Gutless

[Centurion1]

yawn catering to across the aisle. hes trying to get a little heat off of himself. if he means the message? awesome for some of it, but probably not.

[Strike For The South]

yawn catering to across the aisle. hes trying to get a little heat off of himself. if he means the message? awesome for some of it, but probably not.

Are you kidding he spent half the time sucking of the republicans. Then when he mentions that experation of the Bush tax cuts and DADT he looks like a scared little boy. He needs to sack up and stand on principle for once

[PanzerJaeger]

It was lackluster in delivery and full of nonsensical talking points.

[Centurion1]

Are you kidding he spent half the time sucking of the republicans. Then when he mentions that experation of the Bush tax cuts and DADT he looks like a scared little boy. He needs to sack up and stand on principle for once

im a conservative i like when he doesnt stand for his principles......

or maybe he realizes the flaws in his principles.

[Louis VI the Fat]

* something pro-Obama here *


Sorry. I just can't be bothered to watch that entire speech. You rightwing Giffords-murderers shall just have to pretend there's some insightful probama comment above, okay?

Come on, you know you can. We Obama supporters too know how to pretend that somewhere there's some actual content. :beam:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I guess I am the only one who just enjoys listening to presidential speeches. I liked it.

[Lemur]

Missed it. If anybody has a link for watching it on the internet tubes ... I might. Then again, I might not. These SOTU speeches rarely amount to much, no matter who is Prez.

[Xiahou]

Missed it. If anybody has a link for watching it on the internet tubes ... I might. Then again, I might not. These SOTU speeches rarely amount to much, no matter who is Prez.
I say we go back to submitting them in writing to Congress. The SOTU is too much like a pep rally or sporting event to achieve anything meaningful as it stands.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I wouldn't mind listening or reading the entire speech. But that would still only be five percent of the workload. Then I shall have to read commentaries to discover how much of it is based on actual or proposed legislation, then I shall have to read up on their effects, and then try to make a critical assesment drawing from what else assorted information I can find about it.



Still, lest we not see the forest for the trees, what kind of SotU adress is preferable:

- We need teh guns to shoot the terrorists, I need a trillion dollars in government handouts for defense contracts for befriended firms.
- And if you're not with us you're against us.

or

- We need to renew our efforts in innovention, need to invest in America, in our education, in our technology, and then we can do it again, startle the world yet again. We can, we really can.
- We're in this together, so let's do it together.

[drone]

I missed it, but if he said anything other than, "We are royally :daisy:", he's a liar.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ .....

[Hosakawa Tito]

Big guvment is here to stay and all y'all will have to pay for it. So :tongue3:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I missed it, but if he said anything other than, "We are royally :daisy:", he's a liar.Well Obama being the most honest politician of any major country, this indeed was exactly what he said.


Daisied indeed. The past few years, America has seen too many Sputniks reach space first. Moments that made America realise that it was not winning. Realise it was not living up to its potential.

Fortunately, next to being refreshingly honest, Obama is also a winner. He wants to succeed, to prevail. He is going to put up a fight. Going to invest in education, in innovation. He's going to create incentives to make American enterprise competitive again.

On top of all that, Obama even managed to overcome partisanship yet again and reach out across the aisle.


Obama has forced me to eat my words. My predictions about him being were wrong. Instead Obama has turned into a fantastic president. A major statesman. :2thumbsup:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I missed it, but if he said anything other than, "We are royally :daisy:", he's a liar.

I think this kind of attitude is counter productive. A decline doesn't mean we are the Western Roman Empire here. It just means we have been doing things the wrong way for a while and we need to change it up and improve to ourselves. This is why I don't understand why people bash Obama for doing exactly this, if these changes he is making are really so terrible, their impacts will be evident and the public has shown itself more than willing to throw out a party when they feel dissatisfied.

[Major Robert Dump]

Sarah Palin on Greta's show today was LOLZ. She said America doesn't need a sputnik moment because sputnik collapsed the USSR. I have a palm print on my forehead.

[drone]

I think this kind of attitude is counter productive. A decline doesn't mean we are the Western Roman Empire here. It just means we have been doing things the wrong way for a while and we need to change it up and improve to ourselves. This is why I don't understand why people bash Obama for doing exactly this, if these changes he is making are really so terrible, their impacts will be evident and the public has shown itself more than willing to throw out a party when they feel dissatisfied.
As the so-called leader of the country, he can't very well get up there and spout doom and malaise. But this (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/01/26/133240383/u-s-2011-deficit-picture-bleak-worse-may-follow-cbo) = :daisy:, and I don't see anyone with the influence and political courage necessary to reverse it. No one is going to crank up taxes or cut the Worst Generation's handouts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security), it's political suicide.

[Hosakawa Tito]

High speed rail and solar shingles? Just what we need, a bigger Amtrak. We can put the solar shingles on top of the train, build windmills along the track. Then we'd have the ultimate perpetual motion machine and our energy needs would be solved. Brilliant!

[Xiahou]

and I don't see anyone with the influence and political courage necessary to reverse it. No one is going to crank up taxes or cut the Worst Generation's handouts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security), it's political suicide.Chris Christie? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTpRPNL9dWA)

[Lemur]

Chris Christie? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTpRPNL9dWA)
The link, she is broken! May we have another?

[a completely inoffensive name]

As the so-called leader of the country, he can't very well get up there and spout doom and malaise. But this (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/01/26/133240383/u-s-2011-deficit-picture-bleak-worse-may-follow-cbo) = :daisy:, and I don't see anyone with the influence and political courage necessary to reverse it. No one is going to crank up taxes or cut the Worst Generation's handouts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security), it's political suicide.

We are hemorrhaging money because people are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices, not because of any inherent flaw in the system that is causing our downfall. Our deficit for 2011 is looking at 1.5 trillion, but guess what it would have only been 800 billion if people actually followed through in supporting Obama and the Democrats in revoking the Bush Tax Cuts for the top 1%. This idea that we are downhill is not inevitable. The situation will only guess worse and worse up to the point where people's standard of living is completely challenged. Then things will start to get fixed. But as I said before, your attitude seems to be that we will find ourselves on the same level as 1992 USSR, which isn't really the case.

[Megas Methuselah]

Sarah Palin on Greta's show today was LOLZ. She said America doesn't need a sputnik moment because sputnik collapsed the USSR. I have a palm print on my forehead.

LOL. I need to see this, hahaha...

[Hosakawa Tito]

Marc Faber checks in. Guess we put him in the nay column.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSclHbiBzmc

[Xiahou]

The link, she is broken! May we have another?

Argh! Here's the same video (http://blogs.app.com/capitolquickies/2011/01/27/christie-discusses-police-salaries-video/) from a different source.

[drone]

We are hemorrhaging money because people are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices, not because of any inherent flaw in the system that is causing our downfall. Our deficit for 2011 is looking at 1.5 trillion, but guess what it would have only been 800 billion if people actually followed through in supporting Obama and the Democrats in revoking the Bush Tax Cuts for the top 1%. This idea that we are downhill is not inevitable. The situation will only guess worse and worse up to the point where people's standard of living is completely challenged. Then things will start to get fixed. But as I said before, your attitude seems to be that we will find ourselves on the same level as 1992 USSR, which isn't really the case.
When you say "people", you really mean "members of Congress". Hence my comment on political courage. Nobody (at least in a leadership position) is willing to stand up and say "we need to raise taxes, my political career be damned". Not since 41 anyway.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When you say "people", you really mean "members of Congress". Hence my comment on political courage. Nobody (at least in a leadership position) is willing to stand up and say "we need to raise taxes, my political career be damned". Not since 41 anyway.

No, when I say people I really mean the public. Congress does what the public wants, which is lower taxes, more goodies. The reason why politicians don't stand up is because quite frankly, no one wants to hear it. In other countries, the difference is that people are receptive to the idea of taking on more taxes.

Here is a an example of Europe, the UK:

UK politicans: "We think we might have to raise taxes."
UK public: "Well if this is a temporary burden so that we can reduce our large debt levels, then I guess I can accept this reality."

US politicans: "We think we might have to raise taxes."
US public: "UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH TAXES!?!?!? GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM IN MY COUNTRY, NO!!!!!! KILL THE WELFARE QUEENS INSTEAD!"


Courage is wasted when those you are trying to lead don't want a leader in the first place.

[drone]

The more cynical of us think the politicians don't stand up because they are too busy feathering their nests and want to continue in their positions 2-4 years down the lines. As a republic, our representatives don't have to do what we want, just what they think is best. Currently, getting reelected is what most think is best, regardless of how close the cliff edge is coming. Hard choices are necessary now, before we no longer have any choices.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes but either way the UK public is receptive to the message of less money now to have some left later, whereas the US one is not. That makes a difference even if on both sides politicians are despised for being self serving and short sighted.

[Xiahou]

Yes but either way the UK public is receptive to the message of less money now to have some left later, whereas the US one is not. That makes a difference even if on both sides politicians are despised for being self serving and short sighted.Do you have any evidence for that claim?

[Tellos Athenaios]

You might want to read the posts preceding it. USA politicians feathering their nests occurs either way in drone's cynical view of politics: the USA public being receptive of any message is a variable independent of feathering of nests. With what message the politicians feather their nests, however is not.

[Fisherking]

You might want to read the posts preceding it. USA politicians feathering their nests occurs either way in drone's cynical view of politics: the USA public being receptive of any message is a variable independent of feathering of nests. With what message the politicians feather their nests, however is not.

In US politics, I would say he is completely correct. Almost!

The elected Representatives represent who they think got them elected. The moneyed interests who paid for their campaigns. Most of the bills introduced and regulations offered point to this.

Doing something for the public good usually runs counter to their real interests so lip service and evasion are standard tactics.

Meanwhile the public is under the impression that they put them there but they seem to worried about public opinion to act.

Well, that is safer for them than to show their real hand, isn’t it?

[drone]

Congress was able to pass an unpopular bill last year, despite the wailing/gnashing of teeth/cries of socialism by their constituents and media. Balancing the budget is a more worthwhile endeavor, why no progress?

[Fisherking]

Uh, why would they want to limit themselves and their buddies to spending only what they have when they don’t pay for it in the first place?

Eventually the debt will cripple even them but by that time they may care less about it...

They just have an open checkbook and they don’t listen to those who say stop.


edit:You may have elected them as Representatives but they see themselves as your Leaders.

So why should they listen to a bunch of pipsqueaks?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Congress was able to pass an unpopular bill last year, despite the wailing/gnashing of teeth/cries of socialism by their constituents and media. Balancing the budget is a more worthwhile endeavor, why no progress?

That is overly simplified. The public wanted health care reform, only the extremely ideologically blinded can claim that somehow the American system is the best system in the world for taking care of those who live within out borders. When the battle over health care started, the public was enthusiastic about it, it was because of the 24/7 slander, lies and manipulated statistics coming from the Republican side that drove public opinion of it down.

Because we all know that the public disapproved of it because there was clearly death panels in it.

[drone]

That is overly simplified. The public wanted health care reform, only the extremely ideologically blinded can claim that somehow the American system is the best system in the world for taking care of those who live within out borders. When the battle over health care started, the public was enthusiastic about it, it was because of the 24/7 slander, lies and manipulated statistics coming from the Republican side that drove public opinion of it down.

Because we all know that the public disapproved of it because there was clearly death panels in it.

I imagine the public wants a balanced budget, as only the most financially inept can't see the trouble coming without action. And when it comes to the solutions (higher taxes, reduced entitlements), there will be a lot of people complaining about the proposals (hopefully these include death panels, for the lulz). I'm not seeing how the public's reaction will be any different, and this is way more important than health care reform.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I imagine the public wants a balanced budget, as only the most financially inept can't see the trouble coming without action. And when it comes to the solutions (higher taxes, reduced entitlements), there will be a lot of people complaining about the proposals (hopefully these include death panels, for the lulz). I'm not seeing how the public's reaction will be any different, and this is way more important than health care reform.

No, the public claims to want a balanced budget, but their voting habits betray their real feelings. Baby boomers don't want you to change anything, because they want their entitlements. Health care reform reached where statistically more than 1 in 10 people had no health care, at that point, people really do start losing their ****. Right now, no one has really lost anything because we keep borrowing, so all the talk from people is just that, talk.

[Xiahou]

That is overly simplified.Sort of like glibly blaming "the public" for the national debt. :yes:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sort of like glibly blaming "the public" for the national debt. :yes:

Not really considering I have explained why I have said the public is to blame for the national debt.

[Xiahou]

Not really considering I have explained why I have said the public is to blame for the national debt.
You mean this?

No, when I say people I really mean the public. Congress does what the public wants, which is lower taxes, more goodies. The reason why politicians don't stand up is because quite frankly, no one wants to hear it. In other countries, the difference is that people are receptive to the idea of taking on more taxes.

Here is a an example of Europe, the UK:

UK politicans: "We think we might have to raise taxes."
UK public: "Well if this is a temporary burden so that we can reduce our large debt levels, then I guess I can accept this reality."

US politicans: "We think we might have to raise taxes."
US public: "UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH TAXES!?!?!? GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM IN MY COUNTRY, NO!!!!!! KILL THE WELFARE QUEENS INSTEAD!"


Courage is wasted when those you are trying to lead don't want a leader in the first place. Forgive me for not being convinced by this. Since Tellos seems unwilling, do you have any kind of evidence to back this up or is this simply your personal impression? The US certainly isn't the only country swimming in red ink- last I've seen the UK has a higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt) debt to GDP ratio than the US. Where are the masses of UK citizens clamoring for higher taxes?

[Greyblades]

Pfft...:laugh4: you realy expect in any circumstance anyone would be clamouring for taxes?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Forgive me for not being convinced by this. Since Tellos seems unwilling, do you have any kind of evidence to back this up or is this simply your personal impression? The US certainly isn't the only country swimming in red ink- last I've seen the UK has a higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt) debt to GDP ratio than the US. Where are the masses of UK citizens clamoring for higher taxes?

Where is the UK Tea Party holding signs like this:
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-04/53319593.jpg

oh wait, they don't have one.

[Xiahou]

oh wait, they don't have one.
Guess again (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100027366/british-tea-party-movement-to-launch-on-saturday/).

Additionally... Budget 2010: Three quarters of voters back spending cuts not tax rises – Guardian/ICM poll (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/21/budget-2010-guardian-icm-poll)

I'm still waiting for some proof.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Guess again (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100027366/british-tea-party-movement-to-launch-on-saturday/).
Is this the same British guy that Furn linked to who believes that Reagan was the greatest man in the world and that his country sucks full of socialism? Why do people keep bringing this guy up?



Additionally... Budget 2010: Three quarters of voters back spending cuts not tax rises – Guardian/ICM poll (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/21/budget-2010-guardian-icm-poll)

I'm still waiting for some proof.

And how is what you said proof of the other way? Omg, shocker, people don't want to pay taxes. See what Greyblades said. That isn't refuting what I said. The fact is, they voted for the Tories who has a leader which said before the election, we may need to raise taxes. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-tories-may-need-to-raise-taxes-868710.html)

Never, ever in present day America would Americans ever vote for anyone who would say public, my policy may involve an increase in taxes. Bush Sr.'s popularity jump was solely because his campaign motto consisted of one core element:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w

His downfall which led to him to being a one term president was solely because the American people were so outraged that *gasp* he raised taxes!

[drone]

His downfall which led to him to being a one term president was solely because the American people were so outraged that *gasp* he raised taxes!
His mistake was making that speech, not raising taxes. I think he would have gotten reelected if Clinton had not been able to throw that speech back at him (that, and the late term recession). Bush looked at the numbers and found that higher taxes were necessary, reelection chances be damned.

And now we are back around to my original point, no one since 41 has had the political courage to try to fix this problem. Politicians all look at what happened to Bush, and decide that their positions and careers are more important. We are :daisy:.

[HoreTore]

You mean this?
Forgive me for not being convinced by this. Since Tellos seems unwilling, do you have any kind of evidence to back this up or is this simply your personal impression? The US certainly isn't the only country swimming in red ink- last I've seen the UK has a higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt) debt to GDP ratio than the US. Where are the masses of UK citizens clamoring for higher taxes?

I can't speak for the financial acrobats of Britainland, but I have a clear example from Vikingland:

Our current government was elected for the first time in 2005. What was (one of) their main slogan(s)? Raise taxes. The previous government had lowered them, the current one was elected on the basis of raising them back up again. And it wasn't some last minute thing either, it was nailed into the foundation of the three-party alliance which was in February, IIRC, while the electon was in october.

Norwegians had a choice between two clear cut blocks; one that promised higher taxes, one that promised to lower them. And I along with more than 50% of the votes chose high taxes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

His mistake was making that speech, not raising taxes. I think he would have gotten reelected if Clinton had not been able to throw that speech back at him (that, and the late term recession). Bush looked at the numbers and found that higher taxes were necessary, reelection chances be damned.

And now we are back around to my original point, no one since 41 has had the political courage to try to fix this problem. Politicians all look at what happened to Bush, and decide that their positions and careers are more important. We are :daisy:.

What was your original point? You claimed that my statement that the American public is different from the European public when it comes to public acceptance of raising taxes was false. I just showed you an example of how a president's rise and fall was because of promises of lower taxes followed by higher taxes. The public then ate him alive. It wasn't because he broke a campaign promise, if you are going to use that as your argument why he failed to gain a second term, then every president should be a one term president, for they all break key promises they made (When is Guantanamo shutting down?).

Now you say that your original point is that we are :daisy: because no one has the political courage. Exactly! Because the public ate Bush Sr. alive because of raising taxes when it was needed.

[drone]

As the so-called leader of the country, he can't very well get up there and spout doom and malaise. But this (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/01/26/133240383/u-s-2011-deficit-picture-bleak-worse-may-follow-cbo) = :daisy:, and I don't see anyone with the influence and political courage necessary to reverse it. No one is going to crank up taxes or cut the Worst Generation's handouts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security), it's political suicide.

After my original "we are :daisy:" comment, this was my first response. I stand by it. I have not made any comment in this thread about the difference between citizens of the USA and Europe, I don't know enough about European voters to make any kind of statement there. And I specifically used 41 as an example of someone with the political courage to do the right thing.

The public has nothing to do with it, we elect politicians to serve us, not to spend their term trying to get reelected.

I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

[a completely inoffensive name]

After my original "we are :daisy:" comment, this was my first response. I stand by it. I have not made any comment in this thread about the difference between citizens of the USA and Europe, I don't know enough about European voters to make any kind of statement there. And I specifically used 41 as an example of someone with the political courage to do the right thing.

The public has nothing to do with it, we elect politicians to serve us, not to spend their term trying to get reelected.


My bad, I didn't see that Xiahou replied, not you. In my defense it's the green names and similar avatars, they trip me up.

[drone]

My bad, I didn't see that Xiahou replied, not you. In my defense it's the green names and similar avatars, they trip me up.
Similar avatars? Xiahou's nu-skool choice simply cannot compare! :tongue3:

[Fisherking]

My bad, I didn't see that Xiahou replied, not you. In my defense it's the green names and similar avatars, they trip me up.

That sounds down-right bigoted!

Yeh, all them green guys look alike....:shame:



:laugh4: