State of the Union

Suryavarman

Here is the full speech:

Here are some of the replies:

Greg Mankiw's reply and Ron Paul's reply

The GOP response delivered by Mitch Daniels:

The Tea Party response by Herman Cain:

Rand Paul's reply:

Cato Institute reply:

RichieC

Suryavarman wrote: »

Finally finished watching the speech and some of the replies to it. Needless to say I thought very little of it. Numerous times throughout the speech he betrayed his ignorance of basic economic principles and continued to engage in class warfare. Some of the standout moments for me were:.

in other word "disagreed with my dogma so is therefore automatically wrong..."

give it a rest, most of the planet think you are wrong. all of the time.

1) Talking about how his grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line helped turn out the best products on Earth. I must have been asleep when it was decided that bombers were a good thing. They were a good thing, during the war.

2) When discussing how Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary(even though he doesn't) his solution to that problem was to raise Buffet's taxes but not to cut his secretaries taxes. Recession... they need money to fund government, I know you and your malcontent ilk do not like the idea of government, but there is pretty much a consensus on its need

3) Similarly with corporations he talked about how companies that are outsourcing pay lower taxes than companies that aren't outsourcing. He didn't take the time to acknowledge that the US has one of the highest corporation taxes in the world and recommend that it be lowered but instead suggested that it should be raised. This is about as close to agreement as we'll get.

timesnap

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's a member of the cabinet that becomes president in the case of a disaster. This year it was Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. Recently there have also been a few members of Congress that stay somewhere other than the chamber in order to form a rump Congress in the event of a disaster.

Thank You suryavaman, i actually first saw that on my battered box set of the west wing and wondered was it true.

I think Obama pushed an awful lot of the right buttons if i was standing in an Americans shoes,but as has been pointed out it was also his firing shot in his re-election campaign.

for most of the speech i could find no fault in his aspirations and he certainly must have members of congress.

what fault can be found in taxing multinationals to subsidise start up companies in the US?

what fault can be found in beefing up an agency to prevent China or other Countries cloning US produced products.?
in China it will just be laughed at.

What fault can be found in keeping people in school until they are eighteen?
or rewarding teachers who get results .

what fault can be found in QE to stimulate an economy in meltdown,something the ECB has refused to do even when the IMF asked it to .

We are throwing away our values and accepting a new world order that we will live to regret imo.

Richie C you have once again used the :rolleyes: against Amerika

Amerika makes the forum fun and educational and really does not deserve that.

It would be nice if other Republican supporters would make their views known.
Amerika has the courage of his convictions and does not hide it

people do not have to agree with him,but he deserves respect imo.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

After watching this President’s modus operandi for the last 3 years, I’d be willing to bet he plans on killing it completely in his second term. This year is an election year, so he needs to tred lightly.

What can one say to this.... how about a good old :rolleyes:

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah it’s been debated. But even if he number is half or a third the estimate of 20,000, and leads for less energy dependence on countries hostile to the US, I’d say it’s a good thing. How about we get-er-done and see.


Endless years of studies until we finally one that says it's a bad thing, eh?

From all that I have read, it is clear it won't create as many jobs, the figure will be one of debate but it could be a fraction.
Yea, get-er-done and see, that attitude has clearly worked, certain oil spillages must be distant memories to some people, sure as long as we feed the beast, who cares.
It will also only support a very very small percentage of the US daily oil needs.

It is clearly a bad thing, anyone with half a brain cell would recognize this but it may be a necessary thing. We should be trying to move away from oil not trying to refine tar sand oil.

There are so many more projects that people should be concentrating on, rebuilding Americas infrastructure will create many more jobs.

timesnap

Carcharodon wrote: »

What can one say to this.... how about a good old :rolleyes:

How about just making your point without :rolleyes:

unless of course you want it to become a one party stateforum?

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

But in all seriousness, if you get a chance to watch, listen to his cleaver wording. Most of what he says, in the way he says it, can mean almost everything from good to bad. There is just no defining what the man actually means from what he says. He might be cleaver in his wording, but makes him appear untrustworthy for those watching without their Obamablinders on.

I really wish he could just come out and say something like... Nothing we have done has helped much, things are still bad, I made some bad decisions and a couple of good ones, and yes many are unpopular with the majority of Americans. But I feel the republican alternatives are far worse, so stick with me.

How does this make Obama different from any other politician on earth?

Amerika wrote: »

I recall... Tax businesses, tax the wealthy. Spend more on education, research, health care, alternate energy (even though some will fail. LOL - his way of handling the Solyndra scandal for the upcoming election. Thank god money grows on trees, eh).

Haha, I thought the EXACT same thing re: Solyndra when he mentioned businesses failing!

I think that there needs to be major, major tax reforms in the US (after the elections I guess, although it would be nice to have a proposal to vote on) but there was a bit too much government-this, my administration-that in his speech for my liking. Instead of the government 'picking winners' I would like to see more funding for primary research, especially through universities, that could then be spun out and commercialized later. That is where innovation and jobs come from.

It would also be nice to have more policy stability around energy so businesses (and research clusters) could plan accordingly. Part of the reason why Brazil has been able to become energy independent is because they had a 20-year plan and stuck to it. And now at the back end of that, they are global leaders in deepwater drilling and flex fuel technology. The problem is, in the US, none of our political leaders think beyond the next election cycle.

Carcharodon

timesnap wrote: »

How about just making your point without :rolleyes:

unless of course you want it to become a one party stateforum?

Its all that can be done sometimes, it can be quite difficult to penetrate the bubble that some people live in.

Amerika

Thanks timesnap, but I doubt RichieC and Carcharodon will change they ways (talk about living in a bubble ), and their musings at times do provide me with some comic relief.

Suryavarman

RichieC wrote: »

in other word "disagreed with my dogma so is therefore automatically wrong..."

give it a rest, most of the planet think you are wrong. all of the time.

Sorry to disappoint you but belief in the concept of comparative advantage or believing that labour saving technologies are good for the economy are not exclusive to the Austrian School and you would be hard pushed to find an economist of any school that thought those were bad things.

1) Talking about how his grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line helped turn out the best products on Earth. I must have been asleep when it was decided that bombers were a good thing. They were a good thing, during the war.

Obama obviously thinks they are a good thing all the time or he wouldn't have brought them up. There was a whole host of products that America were the best at producing in the post war period and he chose to highlight bombers.

2) When discussing how Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary(even though he doesn't) his solution to that problem was to raise Buffet's taxes but not to cut his secretaries taxes. Recession... they need money to fund government, I know you and your malcontent ilk do not like the idea of government, but there is pretty much a consensus on its need

The recession is all the more reason to cut taxes and to encourage growth then. Considering Obama is such a champion of the middle class one would think he'd only be too delighted to give the middle class a tax cut.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

How does this make Obama different from any other politician on earth?

Reality... Candidates make campaign promises all the time which they fail to keep after getting elected. But the main difference here is Barack Obama guaranteed us he was different! He often referred to the broken promises of other politicians, saying "Too many times after an election is over and the confetti's swept away, all those promises fade from memory." He said that wasn't going to happen to him if we put him into the White House. He was the candidate of hope and change (you remember all that hopey - changey stuff don’t you ). He promised us his administration was going to be unique, was going to be transparent, and that there was going to be no more hyper-partisanship! No more politics as usual! No more broken promises!

Bullocks!

That’s why he’s different than other politicians IMO.

FatherTed

But they ALL say that.

timesnap

Amerika wrote: »

Reality... Candidates make campaign promises all the time which they fail to keep after getting elected. But the main difference here is Barack Obama guaranteed us he was different! He often referred to the broken promises of other politicians, saying "Too many times after an election is over and the confetti's swept away, all those promises fade from memory." He said that wasn't going to happen to him if we put him into the White House. He was the candidate of hope and change (you remember all that hopey - changey stuff don’t you ). He promised us his administration was going to be unique, was going to be transparent, and that there was going to be no more hyper-partisanship! No more politics as usual! No more broken promises!
Bullocks!
That’s why he’s different than other politicians IMO.

Amerika you know Congress has not allowed him to be different.

many force's have worked against even the most sensible of idea's just to destroy first and foremost the man, then the policies.

it seems to me that destroying him and his policies were more important than what was best for America since day one by Congress.

i wonder sometimes did Congress accept the results of the 08 election?

every spanner has been thrown in the works of even the most reasonable bill his administration wished for by Republicans and some Democrats.

what will it take to make R's and D's work together?
the US will self destruct if it only see's things in party colours.
in fact the inability to realise and respect the fact that Obama actually won the last election by Republicans may turn out to be another nail in the coffin of the fast approaching trains that are hell bent on becoming the new Global superpower.

most of all a Patriot should at least know their enemies and swallow bitter pills to keep their Nation strong.

Amerika

Some interesting points timesnap, not all of which are incorrect. But one thing sticks in the back of my mind as I read your post that causes me to say bullocks... President Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress for the first 2 years of his term. The Democrats were the majority in the House of Representatives and the majority in the Senate. The "people" (most of which were not Republicans) decided they didn't like the direction of Congress, a direct response to what they felt about the President, and elected a Republican controlled house in 2010. The Senate remained controlled by Democrats, but just narrowly. So one year of one-third of the Executive/Legislative branches is to blame for Obama's failings? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

timesnap

Amerika wrote: »

Some interesting points timesnap, not all of which are incorrect.

I consider that high praise coming from you

But one thing sticks in the back of my mind as I read your post that causes me to say bullocks... President Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress for the first 2 years of his term.

Some were Democrats in name only to be fair, after Dubya Americans would have voted in anybody that was not a GOP'r
the fact that it voted in the first non pure white skinned president in its history was a justification at last of all the BS it speaks about equality for all

The Democrats were the majority in the House of Representatives and the majority in the Senate. The "people" (most of which were not Republicans) decided they didn't like the direction of Congress,

They like its direction or lack of even less now.
it must be the most ineffective congress ever,well i hope there were none that were more ineffective.
it took eight years of Bush who flushed the US down the toilet to make it happen........... "Free at last,Free at last,thank god almighty" it seemed,but even many Democrats kept the shackles on the prez.

a direct response to what they felt about the President, and elected a Republican controlled house in 2010. The Senate remained controlled by Democrats,

Since Obama won it has been a tweedle dee and tweedle dumb congress,no matter the party,most people know deep down the reason Obama has been opposed, ffs he would find it hard to get a happy Christmas to all bill passed..

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Do you mean when you go shopping you do not buy American made goods but cheaper ones made abroad?:p

RichieC

A good illstrative example of republicans being slittery: compare their talk on immigration in the SC debate to that the florida one.

Snakes.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Some interesting points timesnap, not all of which are incorrect. But one thing sticks in the back of my mind as I read your post that causes me to say bullocks... President Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress for the first 2 years of his term. The Democrats were the majority in the House of Representatives and the majority in the Senate. The "people" (most of which were not Republicans) decided they didn't like the direction of Congress, a direct response to what they felt about the President, and elected a Republican controlled house in 2010. The Senate remained controlled by Democrats, but just narrowly. So one year of one-third of the Executive/Legislative branches is to blame for Obama's failings? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

I think Obama should have pushed harder with the Congress from 2008-2010, but the reality of the situation was that he did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and that is where serious obstructionism takes place.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think Obama should have pushed harder with the Congress from 2008-2010, but the reality of the situation was that he did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and that is where serious obstructionism takes place.

Oh come on! He got ObamaCare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) passed. If he was able to get that horrible bit of legislation passed, he could have gotten just about anything passed.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Oh come on! He got ObamaCare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) passed. If he was able to get that horrible bit of legislation passed, he could have gotten just about anything passed.

It's precisely because that was so horrible and took so much arm twisting that he hasn't been able to get anything else done - he essentially, to use a rather crude term, 'blew his wad' on health care as his BIG issue; subsequently we aren't going to see anything like immigration reform, social security reform, etc until after the Presidential elections.

That said, I think he should have called the GOP's bluff around unemployment insurance when trying to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Amerika

Yup, he spent his capital, momentum and good graces on health care reform, ignoring the far more pressing and challenging matters facing the country. Now I figure he will try and push through a plethora of equally horrendous ideas knowing full well Congress (both the Senate and House) won’t sign on to more bad ideas. That way he can blame Congress for the country’s failings, and beg the electorate for another four years. And sadly, people will fall for it... but hopefully not to many.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Yup, he spent his capital, momentum and good graces on health care reform, ignoring the far more pressing and challenging matters facing the country. Now I figure he will try and push through a plethora of equally horrendous ideas knowing full well Congress (both the Senate and House) won’t sign on to more bad ideas. That way he can blame Congress for the country’s failings, and beg the electorate for another four years. And sadly, people will fall for it... but hopefully not to many.

Such as? Health care is a HUGE issue for the country - it is a major cost for employers, a huge burden on public finances, and affects the lives and productivity of millions of people. If not health care, what major legislation should Obama have spent his political capital on?

And let me be clear: I am not saying that Obama did health care reform RIGHT, what I am saying is that this was the major issue that he chose to use any arm-twisting leverage he had in order to pass.

Amerika

I agree health care reform is important... but the economy, deficit, jobs, spending and illegal immigration were far more important in these severe economic times, and what most people felt were far bigger problems facing the country. More than anything, I think his poll numbers are in the crapper mainly becasue people feel he doesn't have his priorities straight for the good of the country.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

I agree health care reform is important... but the economy, deficit, jobs, spending and illegal immigration were far more important in these severe economic times, and what most people felt were far bigger problems facing the country. More than anything, I think his poll numbers are in the crapper mainly becasue people feel he doesn't have his priorities straight for the good of the country.

Hm, I think these things are more inter-related that you are giving them credit for.

Since most people get their health insurance through work, the high unemployment rate has increased levels of uninsured (although, granted, many of these jobs were in industries like construction where many don't get employer insurance anyway).

The deficit and federal spending are being driven in no small part by skyrocketing medical costs in Medicare and Medicaid. This I think is one of the major flaws with the health care reform: it focuses too much on coverage and doesn't address cost, yet arguably high cost limits coverage in the private sector and contribute to public spending.

As for illegal migration, flows have dried up with the high unemployment rate. I do think that there needs to be immigration reform, especially before the economy gains steam again, but that is such a 'big ticket' policy item, it's going to have to wait until a second term or new administration (and there is no guarantee then).

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Since most people get their health insurance through work, the high unemployment rate has increased levels of uninsured (although, granted, many of these jobs were in industries like construction where many don't get employer insurance anyway).

How has his health care reform helped in this situation? And doesn’t your example prove that perhaps focusing first on the economy and jobs might have alleviated this problem.

The deficit and federal spending are being driven in no small part by skyrocketing medical costs in Medicare and Medicaid. This I think is one of the major flaws with the health care reform: it focuses too much on coverage and doesn't address cost, yet arguably high cost limits coverage in the private sector and contribute to public spending.

Our annual federal spending in 2006 was a little over $4 Trillion. In 2011 it was over $6 Trillion. Answer me this if you can... what have we seen for that 50% increase in gov’t spending in just 5 short years? I highly doubt the majority went to health care.

As for illegal migration, flows have dried up with the high unemployment rate. I do think that there needs to be immigration reform, especially before the economy gains steam again, but that is such a 'big ticket' policy item, it's going to have to wait until a second term or new administration (and there is no guarantee then).

I'll agree with you somewhat on this, but it doesn't change the fact that it remains a big problem becasue there still is 10's of millions of illegal immigrants in the country causing... unpaid taxes, increased welfare costs, increased health care costs, high costs on local-state-federal operations, etc, etc.

FatherTed

Actually budgets are typically calculated a year in advance so Obama's first budget year is 2010. Spending for 2010 was 5.9 trillion and estimated to be 6.2 trillion for 2012.

Amerika

FatherTed wrote: »

...and estimated to be 6.2 trillion for 2012.

Yet the question remains... where is it going and what are we getting for that 50% increase in annual spending in those 5 short years? And if there are 140 million tax filers in the United States of America, about half of whom pay no federal income taxes, isn’t that additional $2 Trillion annually in spending over 2006 annual spending equate to almost $3 million per paying tax filer? We need to cut spending as priority number one!!!

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

How has his health care reform helped in this situation? And doesn’t your example prove that perhaps focusing first on the economy and jobs might have alleviated this problem.


Our annual federal spending in 2006 was a little over $4 Trillion. In 2011 it was over $6 Trillion. Answer me this if you can... what have we seen for that 50% increase in gov’t spending in just 5 short years? I highly doubt the majority went to health care.


I'll agree with you somewhat on this, but it doesn't change the fact that it remains a big problem becasue there still is 10's of millions of illegal immigrants in the country causing... unpaid taxes, increased welfare costs, increased health care costs, high costs on local-state-federal operations, etc, etc.

But you still haven't addressed the question: what 'big ticket' policy should Obama have spent his political capital on?

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

But you still haven't addressed the question: what 'big ticket' policy should Obama have spent his political capital on?

If there "could be only one" (to quote jank ), I'd say the focus should have been on cutting spending if forecasts indicated the economy would not measurably improve.

timesnap

Amerika wrote: »

If there "could be only one" (to quote jank ), I'd say the focus should have been on cutting spending if forecasts indicated the economy would not measurably improve.

Amerika austerity budgets are just not working in Ireland and Europe.
how can taking money out of an economy possibly improve revenue to provide stimulas?
i cannot make sense of it and prevention would have been so much better than cure.
quite honestly i sometimes wonder how US posters are not tempted to tell non US posters were to go when we go overboard or make an ill informed or angry post.

but you know the saying *when America sneezes Europe catch's a cold*
lot of fear around that many freedoms we have will go under if the States lose's its number one spot to a less open society.

to the point i have being trying to make albeit badly at times.

can you or anybody point me to how much legislation has been passed under Obama compared to other presidents first terms?
my first read on American politics was Ted Sorensons Bio of JFK.
Sorenson was a bit of a hero worshipper of JFK,that is clear to me now,but at the back of the book there was a list of bills passed under JFK's less than four years in the white house.
it was very impressive.

must add that i have no sources i trust to hand as i type this as to if Kennedy had carried both houses when elected or if he did ,how he fared in the mid-terms.

anybody got a good link?

many thanks:)

Amerika

timesnap wrote: »

Amerika austerity budgets are just not working in Ireland and Europe.

how can taking money out of an economy possibly improve revenue to provide stimulas?

How much is enough though... when we become Greece? We have just witnessed the largest Keynesian spending boondoggle since the world cooled... with little to show for it. Perhaps it's time to change course before it’s too late.

quite honestly i sometimes wonder how US posters are not tempted to tell non US posters were to go when we go overboard or make an ill informed or angry post.

We take the right of free speech very seriously, and would defend to the death one’s right to be wrong IMO .


off topic, but a good read:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1183

Damocles2

timesnap wrote: »

Amerika austerity budgets are just not working in Ireland and Europe.

how can taking money out of an economy possibly improve revenue to provide stimulas?

can you or anybody point me to how much legislation has been passed under Obama compared to other presidents first terms?

These are comparative tax cuts occurring during the first terms of Bush and Obama (adjusted to 2011 dollars), signed into law by them, but originating in the respective US Congresses. Of course if either president did not approve of these cuts occurring during their administrations, they could have vetoed them (but didn't).