The President's State of the Union Speech

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 26, 2011 3:29 AM GMT
    What did you think ?

    I thought that it was very heavy on bull shit and very light on specifics.

    He proposed ending subsidies for oil companies.
    He proposed having no earmarks, and pledged to veto all legislation that contained them.

    That was it.

    I almost fell off the couch when he advocated encouraging ROTC on college campuses.

    Applause was very lukewarm except for when he praised soldiers and Americans.

    So, where are the jobs ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 3:31 AM GMT
    McCain got his wish--less applause because of the seating. Makes the speech a little shorter. icon_biggrin.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 26, 2011 3:36 AM GMT
    Paul Ryan appears like he either has conjunctivitis or just smoked a joint.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 3:37 AM GMT
    Didnt waste my time listening. O is full of bullshit.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jan 26, 2011 3:48 AM GMT
    I found it somewhat flat. Like one of the same old speeches he has delivered before --- optimistic & eloquent, but heavy on hyperbole and light on substance. In fairness, Paul Ryan's Republican response was no better -- though he is kind of cute icon_wink.gif
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Jan 26, 2011 3:50 AM GMT
    It was quiet due to the Congress deciding not to sit with their parties but with their states. In my opinion it was welcomed as I tire of all the unnecessary cat calls and applause. Overall it was a better speech than last year and showed that the results of Novembers election have forced the administration to at least ponder some ideas from the Republicans.

    I thought the highlight of the night was McCain standing for the earmarks note...lol

    I thought Ryan did a great job on the response but like Obama offered little specifics. I think neither one wanted to tackle some of what will no doubt be the bigger issues facing us in the next years i.e. Soc Sec, Medicare...
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 26, 2011 3:54 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI found it somewhat flat. Like one of the same old speeches he has delivered before --- optimistic & eloquent, but heavy on hyperbole and light on substance.


    just like all the past speeches he made before he was elected our President.

    before the election i considered him a verbose south side wind bag, a speech giver with no set morals or values; soneone who would go whatever the political winds blew him.

    so far, he's done nothing to change my mind.

    i simply considered him the lesser of the two evils.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:03 AM GMT
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  • MuscleComeBac...

    Posts: 2376

    Jan 26, 2011 4:04 AM GMT
    I don't know where the jobs are,
    but note that 24 months into Ronald Reagan's presidency, unemployment was at 10.8%
    24 months into Barack Obama's presidency the unemployment rate is at 9.4%

    I'm certain there wasn't one Republican on the floor tonight who could tell you that number.
  • TheIStrat

    Posts: 777

    Jan 26, 2011 4:07 AM GMT
    Michelle Bachmann makes my skin crawl


    The sense I got from Obama was that he looked at the Left, and Right, and said, "Hello, I am the Center", or that is what he wanted to do.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jan 26, 2011 4:08 AM GMT
    Parts of it were good, but I think he was trying to appease the republicans.

    I didn't like the lack of specifics either, but historically the State of the Union speech is more for cheerleading purposes.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 26, 2011 4:08 AM GMT
    MuscleComeBack saidI don't know where the jobs are,
    but note that 24 months into Ronald Reagan's presidency, unemployment was at 10.8%
    24 months into Barack Obama's presidency the unemployment rate is at 9.4%

    I'm certain there wasn't one Republican on the floor tonight who could tell you that number.



    Look to the newspapers in and around 2001 and 2002 . Bush was blamed for sub 5 percent unemployment.


    Clinton (January 1993 – December 2000)
    Mean: 5.2
    Median: 5.2
    Mode: 5.6

    Bush (January 2001 – December 200icon_cool.gif
    Mean: 5.3
    Median: 5.3
    Mode: 5

    Obama (January 2009 – August 2010)
    Mean: 9.4
    Median: 9.6
    Mode: 9.7

    At what point is these Obama's jobs numbers?

    Not sure but pundits on each side play the blame game. Liberals can keep blaming Bush meanhwile there will a shell of a country if something isnt done soon.

    Raise taxes liberals, see what that does to the employment numbers.
  • baseballjock

    Posts: 6

    Jan 26, 2011 4:15 AM GMT
    I agree, Musclemed - Reagan had double-digit unemployment, but unlike this current regime, he didn't continually blame his predecessor (who began to lay the groundwork for subprime lending and double-digit interest rates). Reagan did his best to get companies to hire workers and end unemployment.

    O can play the blame game all he wants, but it didn't help his party's cause in November, and I think people are now starting to "hope for change" instead of listening to "hope and change."
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 26, 2011 4:17 AM GMT
    baseballjock saidI agree, Musclemed - Reagan had double-digit unemployment, but unlike this current regime, he didn't continually blame his predecessor (who began to lay the groundwork for subprime lending and double-digit interest rates). Reagan did his best to get companies to hire workers and end unemployment.

    O can play the blame game all he wants, but it didn't help his party's cause in November, and I think people are now starting to "hope for change" instead of listening to "hope and change."



    Whats relevant now is Joblessness ( duration of out of work) this is from the NY TIMES> clearly something else has happened here.

    Regardless something needs to be done, real soon.

    economix-12duration-custom1.jpg



    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/the-1980s-vs-now-cont/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:20 AM GMT
    I do not think I have ever seen a President's State of the Union Address by a president from either party where the phrase "short on specifics" was not used by someone after the speech. And I see this one was no exception.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:22 AM GMT
    2012:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:24 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    MuscleComeBack saidI don't know where the jobs are,
    but note that 24 months into Ronald Reagan's presidency, unemployment was at 10.8%
    24 months into Barack Obama's presidency the unemployment rate is at 9.4%

    I'm certain there wasn't one Republican on the floor tonight who could tell you that number.



    Look to the newspapers in and around 2001 and 2002 . Bush was blamed for sub 5 percent unemployment.


    Clinton (January 1993 – December 2000)
    Mean: 5.2
    Median: 5.2
    Mode: 5.6

    Bush (January 2001 – December 200icon_cool.gif
    Mean: 5.3
    Median: 5.3
    Mode: 5

    Obama (January 2009 – August 2010)
    Mean: 9.4
    Median: 9.6
    Mode: 9.7

    At what point is these Obama's jobs numbers?

    Not sure but pundits on each side play the blame game. Liberals can keep blaming Bush meanhwile there will a shell of a country if something isnt done soon.

    Raise taxes liberals, see what that does to the employment numbers.


    Where did you get the Bush numbers because they're complete fiction?
  • Joeyphx444

    Posts: 2382

    Jan 26, 2011 4:24 AM GMT
    MuscleComeBack saidI don't know where the jobs are,
    but note that 24 months into Ronald Reagan's presidency, unemployment was at 10.8%
    24 months into Barack Obama's presidency the unemployment rate is at 9.4%

    I'm certain there wasn't one Republican on the floor tonight who could tell you that number.


    Yes but with Reagen it went down by the end and we had very little to no inflation

    With Obama it is only going up
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:25 AM GMT
    John Boehner is such a douche. He wouldn't even clap when Obama mentioned ending DADT. I can't even stand looking at him. He really gives me the creeps.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:26 AM GMT
    Job creation is, frankly, out of any President's hands. Obama has tried to get the business community back on board through the recent appointment of Immelt (to head the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness) and Daley (as Chief of Staff). As a leading indicator, the stronger stock market will eventually lead to more job creation (time scale unknown).

    As for the SOTU address, it is being referred to as Obama's "Sputnik moment." I think it would have been more impactful if the President had introduced a new movement, all is own, that would lead to accelerated job creation. Too many historical references and not enough concrete steps for the nation's future success.
  • Joeyphx444

    Posts: 2382

    Jan 26, 2011 4:28 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    musclmed said
    MuscleComeBack saidI don't know where the jobs are,
    but note that 24 months into Ronald Reagan's presidency, unemployment was at 10.8%
    24 months into Barack Obama's presidency the unemployment rate is at 9.4%

    I'm certain there wasn't one Republican on the floor tonight who could tell you that number.



    Look to the newspapers in and around 2001 and 2002 . Bush was blamed for sub 5 percent unemployment.


    Clinton (January 1993 – December 2000)
    Mean: 5.2
    Median: 5.2
    Mode: 5.6

    Bush (January 2001 – December 200icon_cool.gif
    Mean: 5.3
    Median: 5.3
    Mode: 5

    Obama (January 2009 – August 2010)
    Mean: 9.4
    Median: 9.6
    Mode: 9.7

    At what point is these Obama's jobs numbers?

    Not sure but pundits on each side play the blame game. Liberals can keep blaming Bush meanhwile there will a shell of a country if something isnt done soon.

    Raise taxes liberals, see what that does to the employment numbers.


    Where did you get the Bush numbers because they're complete fiction?



    This is truth, DEAL WITH IT

    I not only learned this in economics by a professor who has been teaching for over 30 yrs but here

    http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 26, 2011 4:29 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    baseballjock saidI agree, Musclemed - Reagan had double-digit unemployment, but unlike this current regime, he didn't continually blame his predecessor (who began to lay the groundwork for subprime lending and double-digit interest rates). Reagan did his best to get companies to hire workers and end unemployment.

    O can play the blame game all he wants, but it didn't help his party's cause in November, and I think people are now starting to "hope for change" instead of listening to "hope and change."

    Idiotic. Reagan bashed Carter all through his first four years. The Republicans are STILL bashing Carter. Where did you learn your history, in Texas?


    Do you think your kind words will get you special spot on the bread lines of the future?

    The economy is tenuous and one more "event" and the value of the dollar could collapse

    Also in the 80's Reagan had a small majority in the Senate, but the House stayed Democratic.

    Obama had both houses for 2 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:33 AM GMT
    "Our food is safe to eat, our water safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe"

    I call bullshit
  • Joeyphx444

    Posts: 2382

    Jan 26, 2011 4:35 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    Jmuscle33 said

    This is truth, DEAL WITH IT

    I love it when idiots say "Deal with it". It's like watching a child stamping its feet, putting fingers in its ears, and chanting "La la la la la I can't hear you."

    Like that? Pardon the correction: it IS that.


    Well that's fine we are just stating economical facts

    You can say what you want
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:36 AM GMT
    Jmuscle33 said

    Where did you get the Bush numbers because they're complete fiction?



    This is truth, DEAL WITH IT

    I not only learned this in economics by a professor who has been teaching for over 30 yrs but here

    http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm

    LOL. I love when right wingers cite a personal friend as a source. Here's a brief economics lesson for you. Employment/unemployment are lagging indicators of the country's fiscal health. When Bush left office that economy was shedding 750,000 jobs every month. Those job losses rolled into at least the first year of Obama's presidency.