State of the Union, Jan 2011.

kaiser sauze · 25-01-2011 9:41pm #1

OK, who else is staying up to watch it?

An interesting development is the ability to interact with his statements (website) as they are spoken.

Afterwards several of his advisers will take questions.

kaiser sauze · 26-01-2011 2:20am

An early draft of the SOTU that was leaked.

Thus far it has been very close to the words spoken.

kaiser sauze · 26-01-2011 2:28am

Funny moment:

Obama: "...let's give the money we currently give to oil companies to renewable energy companies."

Boehner in background does not clap, his masters will not allow him to.

Manic Moran · 26-01-2011 5:49am

Curses! I came in too late to play the SOTU drinking game.

I guess I'll just take a couple of good swigs anyway.

NTM

clln · 26-01-2011 8:05pm

If it were not such a serious and hurtful matter to those who were affected by it,it was almost comical to see a standing ovation on DADT by everybody in camera range,then it cut to the joint chiefs who firmly stayed seated with a sour head on them,grumpy old gits!

other than that it was mediocre i thought,
His central message of making education the number one priority it is very hard to argue with though.good luck with that one Mr president.

kaiser sauze · 26-01-2011 9:36pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Curses! I came in too late to play the SOTU drinking game.

I guess I'll just take a couple of good swigs anyway.

NTM

That would be dangerous, I stuck with coffee; had to be up at 6AM this morning.

clln wrote: »

If it were not such a serious and hurtful matter to those who were affected by it,it was almost comical to see a standing ovation on DADT by everybody in camera range,then it cut to the joint chiefs who firmly stayed seated with a sour head on them,grumpy old gits!

other than that it was mediocre i thought,
His central message of making education the number one priority it is very hard to argue with though.good luck with that one Mr president.

I agree, the speech was quite flat, but it was a reflection of the reality of a Teapublican House so he had to grandstand about issues that the ordinary voter would never disagree with.

I also agree with you about education, I cannot see The Teapublicans authorising any real investment in education. They see it as merely expenditure and since no defence cuts on on the cards it is hard to see where the money will come from. As I was watching it I was also talking to a US citizen on Skype (currently living in Japan, aged 70yrs+) and he claimed that 35% of US adults are technically illiterate, i.e reading past that of a menu would be too much (Wikipedia shows this to be the high end of an estimate). That is a truly shocking figure.

Overheal · 26-01-2011 11:26pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Curses! I came in too late to play the SOTU drinking game.

I guess I'll just take a couple of good swigs anyway.

NTM

You're lucky you weren't there for the Chinese summit speech. I drew 'Co-operating' out of the hat and then I remember waking up in a bathtub.

Manic Moran · 27-01-2011 4:02am

clln wrote: »

If it were not such a serious and hurtful matter to those who were affected by it,it was almost comical to see a standing ovation on DADT by everybody in camera range,then it cut to the joint chiefs who firmly stayed seated with a sour head on them,grumpy old gits!

It would have been inappropriate for them to do anything else. Their job is to carry out policy, not to approve of it.

Similarly, you did not see the dissenting justices applauding last year when obama criticized the campaign finance decision.

NTM

Permabear · 27-01-2011 4:31am

This post has been deleted.

Einhard · 27-01-2011 5:30am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Whilst that graph shows that expenditure has more than doubled since 1970, it fails to note that the population in 1970, according to the census, was 203,392,031. In 2003, that figure has grown by a third to about 290,000,000. Thus the graph fails to take into account the huge increase in students when detailing the rise in expenditure. If the graph is an attempt to prove that extra $$$ =/= better results, then it is not entirely honest in the way it goes about it.

Permabear · 27-01-2011 6:25am

This post has been deleted.

Einhard · 27-01-2011 6:31am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You showed me so!!

That's a pretty dismal state of affairs. Much like here in Ireland, what's needed is a revolution how money is spent, rather than in how much is spent.

Permabear · 27-01-2011 6:41am

This post has been deleted.

kaiser sauze · 27-01-2011 8:18am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're the one assuming that I want it thrown at teachers.

Permabear · 27-01-2011 5:48pm

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 27-01-2011 6:00pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yikes. I wonder what the average spend per pupil is in Ireland? I can't imagine it being very close considering the salaries teachers command.

Permabear · 27-01-2011 6:43pm

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch · 27-01-2011 6:46pm

And how much do teachers earn per year? It's all very well to harp on about pay, but how much money do they actually take home at the end of the day? Because without that information, I'm not sure it's possible to have a meaningful discussion on the issue.

EastTexas · 27-01-2011 7:14pm

Memnoch wrote: »

And how much do teachers earn per year? It's all very well to harp on about pay, but how much money do they actually take home at the end of the day? Because without that information, I'm not sure it's possible to have a meaningful discussion on the issue.

According to this article below in New York salaries start at about $41,00o and in some cases can reach $100,000 for a longtime teacher, according to district contracts and payrolls. The median salary in Central New York is $53,410.

Recession doesn't hold back Central New York teachers' raises
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/recession_doesnt_hold_back_cen.html

You can also google additional information.

Memnoch · 27-01-2011 7:26pm

41k doesn't seem like a lot after tax.

What % of teachers are on 100k. Are the figures taking into account if they are also in other positions of responsibility such as principle's etc.

Though my question was directed more towards Irish teachers as that had been brought up recently.

Overheal · 28-01-2011 3:43pm

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Funny moment:

Obama: "...let's give the money we currently give to oil companies to renewable energy companies."

Boehner in background does not clap, his masters will not allow him to.

I wouldn't have clapped either.

The reason being that we shouldn't really be subsidizing these companies at all. Should we? Where is the Free Market? Why subsidize sugar or beef? Do we not produce enough sugar or beef? Make enough money selling sugar or beef? Rake in enough billions of dollars refining oil? The President was spot on when he said these industries don't need the government's help, but then neither should renewable energies. If Renewable Energies are really worth investing in, it will be invested in by the free market.

At the end of the day conservative pundits argue that we'll just see this bite us at the pumps - but yeah, so what? The alternative unfortunately is to keep subsidizing them because we are afraid taking off the bandage might hurt a little. Pay the real price of gas and wake up and see the reality of it. I'm sure non-subsidized sugar will turn the country upside down also - doesn't affect me if Snickers go up to $3 per bar or if you can't buy a double cheeseburger for 99 cents. Can't argue Fiscal responsibility for gov't and uphold these subsidies. Boehner was valid in not approving of the same old wash.

clln · 29-01-2011 8:57pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

It would have been inappropriate for them to do anything else. Their job is to carry out policy, not to approve of it.

Not to approve of it would be a hugh understatement Manic!
their arms were firmly folded and each had a look of contempt on their face,closer to a look of hatred!
Not sure if this was contempt for the legislation,the President, or both.

EastTexas · 30-01-2011 2:04pm

clln wrote: »

Not to approve of it would be a hugh understatement Manic!
their arms were firmly folded and each had a look of contempt on their face,closer to a look of hatred!
Not sure if this was contempt for the legislation,the President, or both.

Hatred is a very strong judgment, particularly when based on amateur psycho analysis conducted though a TV/ monitor screen.
Perhaps, and I am not jumping to hasty conclusions, more indicative of what is going on in your head?

I personally like President Obama, but also disagree strongly with some of his proposed policies.

clln · 30-01-2011 2:24pm

EastTexas wrote: »

Hatred is a very strong judgment, particularly when based on amateur psycho analysis conducted though a TV/ monitor screen.
Perhaps, and I am not jumping to hasty conclusions, more indicative of what is going on in your head?

I personally like President Obama, but also disagree strongly with some of his proposed policies.

Reading body language requires no training,it is a basic human skill that most people posess,indeed without it we would be lost.
i suggest you try to find a replay of the event and watch it.
in fact if you have not seen it i do not know how you feel you can comment,and if you have seen it i fail to see how you did not notice.
i emphasised contempt over hatred because i do not know what was going on in their heads other than they wanted to send out a message of disaproval.

EastTexas · 30-01-2011 2:40pm

clln wrote: »

Reading body language requires no training,it is a basic human skill that most people posess,indeed without it we would be lost.
i suggest you try to find a replay of the event and watch it.
in fact if you have not seen it i do not know how you feel you can comment,and if you have seen it i fail to see how you did not notice.
i emphasised contempt over hatred because i do not know what was going on in their heads other than they wanted to send out a message of disaproval.

During my lifetime I have seen each and every one of them live including this one.
Except of the mixed seating, it was no different than any other SOTUA.
As in….,
There was no special contempt or hatred (to use YOUR words) for this particular President.
Which by the way is a most insidious insinuation.

clln · 30-01-2011 2:49pm

EastTexas wrote: »

There was no special contempt or hatred (to use YOUR words) for this particular President.
.

How are you so sure? perhaps it is you has amateur powers of psyco analysis?

Black Swan · 30-01-2011 2:54pm

REMINDER...
Posters in the US Politics forum are to address the content of posts, and not each other, per charter. A few of the above posts are starting to get a bit too personal.

EastTexas · 30-01-2011 2:55pm

clln wrote: »

How are you so sure? perhaps it is you has amateur powers of psyco analysis?

I am not the one who presumed to have detected hatred and contempt.

clln · 30-01-2011 3:20pm

Lets just say the purpose of the exercise is that the POTUS as he is required to do, came before the members of Congress and invited guests to report on the state of the union and they freely responded to what he had to say in an effective manner!

EastTexas · 30-01-2011 3:38pm

clln wrote: »

Lets just say the purpose of the exercise is that the POTUS as he is required to do, came before the members of Congress and invited guests to report on the state of the union and they freely responded to what he had to say in an effective manner!

Precisely, some clap some don’t, depending on what is if put forth.

State of the Union: President Reagan's State of the Union Speech - 1/26/82
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QFLsxeEl5I

State of the Union, Jan 2011.

Comments