I felt the speech is non-combative and dull, except when he said "I know I won both of them". The democrats did not learn the lesson from the loss of Al Gore when he distanced himself from Clinton. The democrats would have done better in the midterm elections if they haven't runaway from Obama. Instead of campaigning on what they believe in, they pay too much attention on the opinion polls. The real message is that he is going to advance his ideas and veto those bills that are too far away from those ideas. One thing is clear that CFPB and Obama care will stay. Obama will turn out to be the strongest lame duck president. The ball is in the republican court.
14
The speech was outstanding. But in reality and unfortunately, we live in a plutocracy. In short, the fewer changes that occur in our tax/economic system the better it is for those who own the system.
4
This piece states that President Obama was defiant/combative last night. I believe those words inaccurately describe his mood. Assertive/empowered better fit the bill. Yet, had defiant and combative been his natural MO after it became painfully clear the Right was erecting an impenetrable wall between him and them he could have put them in their place; figuratively told them to "sit down and shut up." And thus establish his authority. Showing in no uncertain terms who's boss. Yet, despite excruciating disrespect and mind boggling attempts to humiliate him--even at the expense of our country--like shutting down government and forcing him to repeatedly prove his citizenship, his many accomplishments and those yet to come are beyond impressive.
Last night what I saw was an unleashed energized intelligent president giving a riveting electrifying inspirational speech including a clarion call for unity, for living up to our values, and for making sure our reach always exceeds our grasp. By compatison, I saw the other side diminish in significance and size; lost in pettiness and trivial pursuits (despite for some freakish reason their winning the last election.)
Long ago at the end of each Lone Ranger episode and following his good-deed mission someone inspired and bewildered always asked as he rode off "Who is that masked man." I would venture a bet that question resounds in the halls of the Right today. Even if they won't admit it even to themselves.
Last night what I saw was an unleashed energized intelligent president giving a riveting electrifying inspirational speech including a clarion call for unity, for living up to our values, and for making sure our reach always exceeds our grasp. By compatison, I saw the other side diminish in significance and size; lost in pettiness and trivial pursuits (despite for some freakish reason their winning the last election.)
Long ago at the end of each Lone Ranger episode and following his good-deed mission someone inspired and bewildered always asked as he rode off "Who is that masked man." I would venture a bet that question resounds in the halls of the Right today. Even if they won't admit it even to themselves.
8
"..another thing he (Obama) must do: Resist...the false promise of compromise. Give and take is part of the legislative process, but trade-offs amounting to Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable..." Unacceptable?
This publicly stated editorial directive displays a profound disrespect for the American democratic process and for the one-half of Americans who vote for Republicans. It raises serious questions as to whether New York Times' editorial pages will present both sides of issues as we have been assured that they do and even whether the news reporters will cover one-half of America fairly.
Its arbitrary nature raises the even more fundamental question as to whether the NT Times should enjoy special first amendment protection if it is so intimately connected to a government on which it supposed to report independently.
This publicly stated editorial directive displays a profound disrespect for the American democratic process and for the one-half of Americans who vote for Republicans. It raises serious questions as to whether New York Times' editorial pages will present both sides of issues as we have been assured that they do and even whether the news reporters will cover one-half of America fairly.
Its arbitrary nature raises the even more fundamental question as to whether the NT Times should enjoy special first amendment protection if it is so intimately connected to a government on which it supposed to report independently.
6
I just finished reading "The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism," by Edward Baptist. The depth and intractiblity of the Republican - Democrat divide over stuffing the wealth of the USA into fewer and more lowerful hands today reminds me of the depth of the division in Congress over the expansion of slavery in the decades running up to the Civil War.
Today's case is different in that corporate financial power using new technology is virtual, unlike slavery which was tied to and depended on ever increasing expanses of enslaved land. The image of Republicans sitting stone-faced through the President's proposals to more equitably distribute the fruits of work and limit the ability of rentiers to skim the cream off the American economy, however, or coughing through quiet passages in the President's speech where he called on them to act in concert with American values of equality and community, looked to my eyes like a roomful if Southern enslavers in the 1840's arrogant in the power if their speculative bubbles and their whipping machine.
Today's case is different in that corporate financial power using new technology is virtual, unlike slavery which was tied to and depended on ever increasing expanses of enslaved land. The image of Republicans sitting stone-faced through the President's proposals to more equitably distribute the fruits of work and limit the ability of rentiers to skim the cream off the American economy, however, or coughing through quiet passages in the President's speech where he called on them to act in concert with American values of equality and community, looked to my eyes like a roomful if Southern enslavers in the 1840's arrogant in the power if their speculative bubbles and their whipping machine.
11
Those southern enslavers as you call them were Democrats as were the "Southern Block" of 18 southern senators who filibustered to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. It's a matter of history and of the congressional record. A little research will save you another public embarrassment.
5
As someone from country with a far greater inclination to redistributing unequal income through a progressive tax system, I can tell you that letting the Government be the "banker" in any income redistribution plan is a really, really bad idea. If you do, initial improvement in equality will be smaller and will rapidly be entirely gobbled up with nary a burp before another round of "fairness taxes" come down the pipe.
5
According to Senator Ernst: "... The Keystone Pipeline is going to be like the WPA and give jobs to millions of unemployed Americans. ..."
The Keystone Pipeline will give jobs to a few 1000 (a very tiny fraction of the number of unemployed) WHILE it's being built. After it's built, it will employ about 50 people. The Keystone Pipeline is just payback to the Koch Brothers by the politicians that they bought.
The Keystone Pipeline will give jobs to a few 1000 (a very tiny fraction of the number of unemployed) WHILE it's being built. After it's built, it will employ about 50 people. The Keystone Pipeline is just payback to the Koch Brothers by the politicians that they bought.
17
Hey, don't forget all those who will be employed to clean up massive leaks.
10
And America is talking all the risk for no benefits to the American people. Transporting this across the country to the Gulf for refining assumes a tremendous risk to water supplies, property, contamination. When it gets to the Gulf, it will be sent to China. There is nothing in this for the American people. The payoff is to the politicians who support this from the dictatorial hands of the Koch brothers, descendants of the John Birch Society.
7
It is an inspiring editorial and a great foil to those who decry the President's lack of conciliatory language, as if McConnell and his ilk sought conciliation seven years ago when Democrats were a majority in Congress.
4
I listened to the Presidents SOTU here in Solomon Islands where I am working on the health impacts of Climate Change in the Pacific Island countries. When he mentioned the Pacific Region there was a cheer, but when his focus was only on trade and defense there was a sigh of resignation. When he shifted into climate change following his acknowledgment of the Pacific Region gave us hope here that he signaled a shift toward meaningful US engagement in climate change adaptation development in a country like Solomon Islands. No matter what our perspective is of our president at home Mr Obama is very well received by the people of other nations.
23
It is the poorer half of the population that need jobs. These 62 million families had a 70% decline in family wealth since 1995. While Mr. Obama panders to the middle class, at least the poor have free birth control. It's jot much of a solution, but full employment and guaranteed jobs might actually help and turn millions into Republican voters.
4
How is helping pandering?
3
I thought he delivered an excellent speech given he just received a trumping. Unfortunately he ignored the single most important issue regarding eqaulity. He needs to reverse Citizens United. If that is not done everything else is lip service.
It is not just an issue for the Supreme Court. It affects every American... http://lstrn.us/1hkN2ll
It is not just an issue for the Supreme Court. It affects every American... http://lstrn.us/1hkN2ll
10
First he lost the House; then he lost the Senate. Combative is all that he has left. Middle Class is no longer listening and the lower and upper have the same problem, sort of, getting more and not paying more.
But the real problem is an economy that can't keep up with the social and fiscal demands being made on it by government and citizen alike. If that can't be solved, the slow debt-death spiral will only continue.
But the real problem is an economy that can't keep up with the social and fiscal demands being made on it by government and citizen alike. If that can't be solved, the slow debt-death spiral will only continue.
8
the slow debt-death spiral will only continue.
Well then it is a GOOD thing that under this administration the debt has been CUT BY TWO THIRDS....I guess you missed that part?
Well then it is a GOOD thing that under this administration the debt has been CUT BY TWO THIRDS....I guess you missed that part?
5
Where are you living, not the USA? Two-thirds of what--154 trillion of unfunded liabilities? Need to start reading the financial press more and take a financial accounting class or two. also. But the Chinese and Japanese will certainly welcome your happy thoughts about our debt.
The Fed played magic with bank balance sheets and you were perhaps watching the rabbit not the other hand?
The Fed played magic with bank balance sheets and you were perhaps watching the rabbit not the other hand?
2
The debt has been cut by two thirds?
Recently the Drudge Report has published a huge figure on the amount under which the national debt has lately increased under Obama.
Are you talking deficit instead of debt? It's quite different. No expert here but from news I read, our debt is so huge that critics of policy claim our country is bankrupt.
Recently the Drudge Report has published a huge figure on the amount under which the national debt has lately increased under Obama.
Are you talking deficit instead of debt? It's quite different. No expert here but from news I read, our debt is so huge that critics of policy claim our country is bankrupt.
2
I agreed with every word the President spoke last evening. Mr. President, keep that veto pen on your person at all times!
14
The pres should be resolute and adamant in standing by his guns.
8
Of all the criticisms of the speech voiced by commenters here, how many would fundamentally disagree on his points for what would be best for the country going forward? Given what we know of successes (and trickle-down failures) from our own history, can we really argue that 'middle class economics' is a fundamentally bad idea?
8
The Editorial Board mistakes oratorical extravagances with being combative. Mr. Obama can toss words around endlessly and as long as that is all he does he will achieve very little. Too bad we can't get him a blood transfusion from Gorgeous George that will enable him to get in the political ring and bounce his Republican foot draggers off the ropes as he moves ahead with actually getting changes made rather than only talking about them.
1
Republicans wont win next election, they don't do anything and its Obama who has saved this country from an economic melt down. So tired of the negative Republicans who do nothing, say nothing positive and want to push us back to where we were decades ago, you cant win unless you work to make this country better and I don't see any evidence of them doing that.
12
I wonder just how many people watched? I stopped watching because he's a backtracker.
Six years ago he told us oil prices would never come down. From what I understand, last night he took credit because they have fallen so low.
Despite his holding their hands, our enemies hate us, our allies don't know what to believe. Those who don't see this aren't paying attention. Something strange is going on in this White House.
Two years cannot come fast enough.
Six years ago he told us oil prices would never come down. From what I understand, last night he took credit because they have fallen so low.
Despite his holding their hands, our enemies hate us, our allies don't know what to believe. Those who don't see this aren't paying attention. Something strange is going on in this White House.
Two years cannot come fast enough.
5
So I ask, who should be taking credit, Dorothy? Surely, not the treasonous, hateful Republicans who you voted for and who lied daily about the economy they had been trying to destroy. Go take a hike Dorothy. You sound like you been on Oz
10
Actually, Dorothy, knowing many abroad, all in different quadrants of the world, the ONLY Americans that aren't paying attention are the ones who aren't worldly enough to recognize that the current President is regarded as one of the most intelligent, stately leaders the United States has ever had by an overwhelming majority around the world.
The REALITY is, the United States continues to be the laughing stock of the planet, NOT because of the current leadership, but because of the type of ignorance you and yours display. Anyone who has actually "paid attention" to their world would know this right now.
The REALITY is, the United States continues to be the laughing stock of the planet, NOT because of the current leadership, but because of the type of ignorance you and yours display. Anyone who has actually "paid attention" to their world would know this right now.
8
Clearly the GOP is getting its talking heads online and on TV to spout off about Obama's "class warfare."
Make no mistake about it, class warfare has long been underway. However, it's the 1% that has waged it and won.
As Warren Buffett said, "There’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.
"If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In (2010), they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29% to 21% of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won."
Conservatives despise Buffett because he’s telling the truth about the lower tax rates the rich pay on their investments — and worse, he’s insisting that this is fundamentally unfair. As Buffett did above yet again, he’s giving away the game.
Indeed, what the cries of “class warfare” really show is that Buffett has succeeded in forcing a national conversation about the regressive aspects of our tax system. The real class warfare has actually been waged downwards, to great success. And that's why we need to look at shifting the tax burden from the backs of the middle class to the top 10%, who thanks to Reaganesque policies have EXCLUSIVELY REAPED ALL the benefits of productivity gains over the last 30 years.
Make no mistake about it, class warfare has long been underway. However, it's the 1% that has waged it and won.
As Warren Buffett said, "There’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.
"If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In (2010), they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29% to 21% of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won."
Conservatives despise Buffett because he’s telling the truth about the lower tax rates the rich pay on their investments — and worse, he’s insisting that this is fundamentally unfair. As Buffett did above yet again, he’s giving away the game.
Indeed, what the cries of “class warfare” really show is that Buffett has succeeded in forcing a national conversation about the regressive aspects of our tax system. The real class warfare has actually been waged downwards, to great success. And that's why we need to look at shifting the tax burden from the backs of the middle class to the top 10%, who thanks to Reaganesque policies have EXCLUSIVELY REAPED ALL the benefits of productivity gains over the last 30 years.
16
I voted for Mr. Obama twice as did the majority of Americans, only to have the Republicans make a mockery of our Democracy. I believe his historic legacy will exhibit the fruits of the many accomplishments he has had to accomplish by himself without assistance form a recalcitrant Right. I may not be happy with all that has gone on in the past 6 years but, what was the alternative? He has shown leadership on the fight with ISIL, without Congressional help, led the way on the automotive bailout, etc., etc. However, the next two years will show the voting public what mistakes they made by giving the Republicans control of Congress. As they say, people usually vote against their own best interests: lets's have more talking heads spoon-feed the American electorate since it appears that they will swallow anything…
11
The headline of this editorial is misleading. The word, "Still", should be changed to "Finally". The kind of in-your-face approach by President Obama last night would have served him and the country well, had it begun six years ago. We would have had less gridlock on Capitol Hill, more respect for President Obama by the Republicans and both houses controlled by Democrats eager and willing to accomplish good things.
4
like many things in this increasingly depressing century, it seems only violence has a voice. the new aristocracy will not share peacefully.
5
It is abundantly clear that Obama suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
10
The voters who have handed over the nation to Republicans should learn to regret their vote, and The President should see to it that they reap exactly what they have sown. I am certain the Koch Brothers won't mind in the least.
7
Move the speech and the speech maker to a new building/room. Paint the wall's a color chosen by Pantone as one of the top color choices of the year. Dress everyone on the podium in garment's that would elicit a raised eyebrow. Have the 'audience' seated in seat's engineered to make one hear/think with crystalline clarity. Window's would be nice, with a lot of fresh air flowing in.......
Those who WORK have been paying more than their fair share of taxes for most of this century. It is once again time to tax UNEARNED income at the same rate as EARNED income.
15
One cannot help but wonder why it is that President Obama did not become combative before now versus the Republican party of No. His inaction before now continues to astound me.
6
You have not mentioned the last section of the speech, my favorite: values. Listening, we felt he was talking directly to us. It was quite moving. He was absolutely sincere about having been steeped in a different world in Hawaii, a tolerant multi-ethnic place that formed much of his view of the world. He KNOWS in his gut that it IS possible, because he lived it.
The values he describes are those I grew up with, too. It saddens my family deeply to see what has happened to America in the last 40 years. Somewhere things have gotten way off track. Those of us who agree on this must unite to put things right.
The values he describes are those I grew up with, too. It saddens my family deeply to see what has happened to America in the last 40 years. Somewhere things have gotten way off track. Those of us who agree on this must unite to put things right.
17
I find myself in complete agreement with this editorial. It is beautifully written and perceptive.
I wish elected officials in Washington would put politics aside until the next election and reasonably work together to govern for the greater good. I know this is naive because these days advancing the "party" and an "ideology" for many is more important than the needs of the country. But it wasn't always so.
I wish elected officials in Washington would put politics aside until the next election and reasonably work together to govern for the greater good. I know this is naive because these days advancing the "party" and an "ideology" for many is more important than the needs of the country. But it wasn't always so.
7
"...ignored his pleas for cooperation."? Really? Who wrote this? Editorial Board? Wasn't it Obama that basically said; this is what i want and i won't take anything less? When the Senate and House were looking for leadership they found Obama never bending to compromise of any sort. Harry Reid had a large part to play also. But to state the above "...ignored his pleas for cooperation." is crazy. Where has the "Editorial Board" been? I suppose its the reason that so many people that I know has stopped reading the NYTimes. Please report the facts and stop being a mouth piece for a certain group. Please get back to reporting the news as it should be. Unbiased. Go for the story as the news should be and make a person feel they are reading propaganda.
5
This speech seemed more like an info-mercial for Obama, LLC than it did a State of the Union assessment. The Obama brand loses its patent, so to speak, in 24 months. How can the brand be marketed in the post-Presidency to retain some of the grandeur and splendor that comes with great power? How does a mid-fifties power monger retain any semblance of relevance when your product has its dominant market share reduced to zilch? You've won the Triple Crown and now you're put out to pasture in your prime.
5
You lost, twice I might add!!!!
7
I thought his speech was "right-on" and appreciate his constant reminders of serving the middle class!
17
McConnell vowed to make Obama a one term President. Now it's the two term President's turn to make McConnell a one time leader...........and I think he just might do it!
22
The echoing cry of “Why didn’t we hear this in 2009?” is misplaced.
The new Obama administration couldn’t do everything, and had to pick its battles.
First, to stabilize the collapsing financial system the Bush administration had left us with, although the administration had to settle for less stimulus than we should have had.
Their next priority was to expand the availability of health care to something like the level enjoyed in every other industrialized country -- I still shake my jowls that the Republicans can show their faces while continuing to seek repeal of Obamacare. Fortunately it now is probably beyond repeal.
One can disagree with that choice of priorities (after the urgent financial crisis). I think healthcare was the right priority, but I see why many can disagree.
But the Republicans who now say jobs and the economy should have been first aren’t to be taken seriously. They vowed in January 2009 -- out loud and in public -- to oppose whatever the Obama administration championed, to make Obama’s a failed presidency. They’d have opposed whatever Obama started with.
And they now complain that Obama won’t negotiate with them? They now chant that Congress should “repeal and replace” the ACA, without even a hint of what it should be replaced with.
Remember when, AFTER Obamacare had passed in the House, and had passed 60-39 in the Senate, and had been upheld by the Supreme Court -- remember how the Republicans whined that Obama would not “negotiate”.
The new Obama administration couldn’t do everything, and had to pick its battles.
First, to stabilize the collapsing financial system the Bush administration had left us with, although the administration had to settle for less stimulus than we should have had.
Their next priority was to expand the availability of health care to something like the level enjoyed in every other industrialized country -- I still shake my jowls that the Republicans can show their faces while continuing to seek repeal of Obamacare. Fortunately it now is probably beyond repeal.
One can disagree with that choice of priorities (after the urgent financial crisis). I think healthcare was the right priority, but I see why many can disagree.
But the Republicans who now say jobs and the economy should have been first aren’t to be taken seriously. They vowed in January 2009 -- out loud and in public -- to oppose whatever the Obama administration championed, to make Obama’s a failed presidency. They’d have opposed whatever Obama started with.
And they now complain that Obama won’t negotiate with them? They now chant that Congress should “repeal and replace” the ACA, without even a hint of what it should be replaced with.
Remember when, AFTER Obamacare had passed in the House, and had passed 60-39 in the Senate, and had been upheld by the Supreme Court -- remember how the Republicans whined that Obama would not “negotiate”.
12
We all know the President can give a good speech. Let's see if he's able to act on it.
3
Delusional would be more like it.
8
Obama should have clearly stated that he had a mandate, because more people voted for him than all the Senators and Representatives combined, both Democratic and Republican.
3
Now, more than ever, we need intelligent, confident leaders like President Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders who will use their bully pulpits to call out the misguided ideas of the Republican opposition at every turn.
17
This State of the Union speech was a good omen for the next two years: Clear statement of the values which are the foundation of the policies proposed and strong, soaring language confidently used to lift the hopes of many that those values and policies will be defended against Republicans as well as those Democrats too fearful to be strong.
And this speech included an unequivocal message to those who oppose him, President Obama will not go quietly. He has not been intimidated into silence or threatened into irrelevance. Be afraid, GOP, be very afraid; you may have gerrymandered and fooled your way into control of Congress, but you face a rising tide of opposition to your values and your legislative proposals.
And this speech included an unequivocal message to those who oppose him, President Obama will not go quietly. He has not been intimidated into silence or threatened into irrelevance. Be afraid, GOP, be very afraid; you may have gerrymandered and fooled your way into control of Congress, but you face a rising tide of opposition to your values and your legislative proposals.
11
According to Obama, the middle class needs help. The gap between the middle class and the wealthy continues to grow. He proposes to increase taxes on the wealthy in order to provide more benefits to the middle class to bridge the gap. Makes sense, right?
Wait. Didn't he spend the past 6 years implementing policies directly focused on this problem. He has for instance increased the capital gains tax which effects mostly the wealthy. He also lifted the $110,000 cap on the income medicare tax applies to, impacting only the wealthy. He bailed out the auto industry and passed economic stimulus to help keep the middle class remain employed. He passed Obamacare to lower the cost of healthcare for the middle class.
Could it be possible that after six years, the problem has actually gotten worse because of his policies? Is it possible that the main reason the middle class is suffering is that the economy simply is not creating enough new middle class jobs? Isn't it possible that he owns responsibility for that?
His new plans make no sense. Doing more of the same when something isn't working is inane.
Wait. Didn't he spend the past 6 years implementing policies directly focused on this problem. He has for instance increased the capital gains tax which effects mostly the wealthy. He also lifted the $110,000 cap on the income medicare tax applies to, impacting only the wealthy. He bailed out the auto industry and passed economic stimulus to help keep the middle class remain employed. He passed Obamacare to lower the cost of healthcare for the middle class.
Could it be possible that after six years, the problem has actually gotten worse because of his policies? Is it possible that the main reason the middle class is suffering is that the economy simply is not creating enough new middle class jobs? Isn't it possible that he owns responsibility for that?
His new plans make no sense. Doing more of the same when something isn't working is inane.
3
He spent most of that six years fighting Republican obstruction at every step. But just keep telling that big lie. Undoubtedly it will stick with some voters.
9
He had two entire years to do literally anything he wanted, and much law of his making was passed. As for the other four years, he dealt with an opposition party which most every past president has dealt with. Negotiating with a hostile enemy is on the job description.
4
This is the Candidate, I voted for twice.
It may not be a bad idea to have only one term for President and that be of 6-8 Years.
That would free up the President's time to get the agenda on which people vote him/her in office accomplished. He/she may not have to worry about reelection right after the first year and then worry about ensuring the party to remain in power at year 5.
Worth considering.
It may not be a bad idea to have only one term for President and that be of 6-8 Years.
That would free up the President's time to get the agenda on which people vote him/her in office accomplished. He/she may not have to worry about reelection right after the first year and then worry about ensuring the party to remain in power at year 5.
Worth considering.
7
Great speach. I don't know what miracle President Obama was supposed to produce dealing with an opposition that was unwilling to work with him. Would he have been more respected if he gave in to everything they wanted? They were deteremined to make him fail and were very verbal about it. Now they have 2 years to impress the country with their accomplishments. Within the party, will they be able to agree on anything that will produce immigration legistation, tax reform, or anything or will they just continue to throw stones?
6
Pity he didn't do this two, or four, or six years ago. We might now be that much farther ahead.
2
It's easy to tell the majority of American's they'll get something for nothing so he'll look like he's on their side. The real question is whether the policy that comes along with it makes sense.
I can't argue that a little more spending power for lower income households is bad. But the notion of giving away college to anyone who gets in is writing a blank check to bloat that characterizes our higher education system.
We've already seen skyrocketing costs for education as the taps have been opened over the last 40 years. NJ has districts where they spend more than 25,000 per pupil, and the dropout rate has not improved. There are however burgening ranks of administrators who feast on the flow of money, with no functional accountability for their work (I don't hold teachers responsible for this mess).
In the college system, it's worse, with non-educational spending rocketing up, and prices to match. Are the outcomes better than in the 1970s. No.
Unless Americans have actual skin in the game, they won't benefit from the spending. But that doesn't stop Obama from floating bad ideas.
I can't argue that a little more spending power for lower income households is bad. But the notion of giving away college to anyone who gets in is writing a blank check to bloat that characterizes our higher education system.
We've already seen skyrocketing costs for education as the taps have been opened over the last 40 years. NJ has districts where they spend more than 25,000 per pupil, and the dropout rate has not improved. There are however burgening ranks of administrators who feast on the flow of money, with no functional accountability for their work (I don't hold teachers responsible for this mess).
In the college system, it's worse, with non-educational spending rocketing up, and prices to match. Are the outcomes better than in the 1970s. No.
Unless Americans have actual skin in the game, they won't benefit from the spending. But that doesn't stop Obama from floating bad ideas.
2
The gloves are off after all the years dealing with obstructionists. Will the GOP be more compliant and actually work with him? They are walking a tightrope with voters in 2016. If they continue to obstruct everything he wants for the good of the country, they will chance the voters going negative toward them. My guess is there will be a "let's be friends" attitude..."no hard feelings". If there is an ounce of intelligence left in voters they will see right through this...but unfortunately most voters have short memories.
Obama plays politics only as much as he has to...to keep himself and other Democrats in office....hating it all the way ( in my opinion ). He is a man of high standards and ethics. How difficult it must have been for him to put up with what he had to during his years in office.
Obama plays politics only as much as he has to...to keep himself and other Democrats in office....hating it all the way ( in my opinion ). He is a man of high standards and ethics. How difficult it must have been for him to put up with what he had to during his years in office.
3
Sure, speeches are nice. But, hasn't income inequality dramatically risen while this President has been in office? I'm not sure why this has happened. However, doesn't it seem a little strange that really big rich banks get to borrow money for free. And then turn around and charge poor people A LOT of money to borrow that very same money? Is there something we can do about that? It would make for a boring speech, but maybe if we reworked how money is circulated, it could help a lot of people.
6
US CITIZENS NEED THOSE HIGHER PAYING JOBS THAT WERE EXPORTED TO FOREIGN NATIONS!
Some people believe that businesses are greedy, but without greedy individuals, greedy businesses and greedy corporations starting businesses and providing jobs for US citizens, most US citizens would have to live off of the land or be beggars in the streets.
The ONLY purpose of each, any, and every business, partnership or corporation is to make profits, not to create jobs!
Without greedy businesses making profits, there would not be any jobs, not even government jobs because without profitable businesses, the government would not have any wealth confiscated via taxes from profitable businesses to pay for any government jobs and other government activities.
Jobs created with taxes by local or Federal US government do not create wealth, but take a portion of the wealth from those who produced wealth to pay the bureaucratic government payrolls and government contracts for those various public services.
Any new jobs created today by US individual citizens, businesses and US corporations today will be created in foreign countries to take advantage of the "FREE TRADE" laws that were created by the last three Democrat and Republican Presidents that unilaterally removed the import taxes on imported products to ALLOW, ENCOURAGE, and ECONOMICALLY REQUIRE the use of less expensive foreign labor, in order to give the US consumer the absolutely lowest possible price for each product.
Some people believe that businesses are greedy, but without greedy individuals, greedy businesses and greedy corporations starting businesses and providing jobs for US citizens, most US citizens would have to live off of the land or be beggars in the streets.
The ONLY purpose of each, any, and every business, partnership or corporation is to make profits, not to create jobs!
Without greedy businesses making profits, there would not be any jobs, not even government jobs because without profitable businesses, the government would not have any wealth confiscated via taxes from profitable businesses to pay for any government jobs and other government activities.
Jobs created with taxes by local or Federal US government do not create wealth, but take a portion of the wealth from those who produced wealth to pay the bureaucratic government payrolls and government contracts for those various public services.
Any new jobs created today by US individual citizens, businesses and US corporations today will be created in foreign countries to take advantage of the "FREE TRADE" laws that were created by the last three Democrat and Republican Presidents that unilaterally removed the import taxes on imported products to ALLOW, ENCOURAGE, and ECONOMICALLY REQUIRE the use of less expensive foreign labor, in order to give the US consumer the absolutely lowest possible price for each product.
2
Bingo! Obama is setting a new precedent for lame duck years. Nobody needs a powerful advocate right now more than the oxygen tank laden middle class.
4
The most masterful speech I have ever witnessed, even more powerful in leadership than JFK's "Ask not.
It's asking too much, way too much, but I wish the President could also have taken on the Gun Control issue as well. At this point it looks like only open revolution can manage that--your kid gets killed, shoot an NRA leader or one of their cowardly, paid for Congressional backers. Laws, our constitution, are not absolute, no god given foundation, despite the way the conservatives on the USSC think.
It's asking too much, way too much, but I wish the President could also have taken on the Gun Control issue as well. At this point it looks like only open revolution can manage that--your kid gets killed, shoot an NRA leader or one of their cowardly, paid for Congressional backers. Laws, our constitution, are not absolute, no god given foundation, despite the way the conservatives on the USSC think.
7
Mr. President, many of us gave you a standing ovation from home last night, for your perfect response to the juvenile behavior you've encountered at every turn—even as you delivered last night's address. Thank you for rising above the obstruction and disrespect to represent the voice of citizens.
15
So the bankers' criminal actions which caused the recession are now just forgotten? Why?
The revelations by Snowden of illegal spying are now just forgotten? Why?
What do our politicians think about? Obviously not the welfare of citizens.
The revelations by Snowden of illegal spying are now just forgotten? Why?
What do our politicians think about? Obviously not the welfare of citizens.
2
The President has two years left in his second term. Apparently he plans to continue to divide the nation and present populist proposals that will not make it through Congress designed to attract maximum Democrat votes in the next Presidential election and paint the GOP as bad guys and elitists while he is at it and personally take credit for everything good that has happened in the US economy even if his policies had nothing to do with it or he attempted to prevent the good from happening. I really don't think the GOP is up to opposing him in a way that will prevent him from getting what he wants. He is just going to issue "stick it in your eye" executive orders to do whatever he pleases. Populism works when it comes to getting votes for the Democrats. Everyone wants free stuff. So be it. The conservatives should not give up but spend the next two years submitting well thought out proposals of their own to present to the people and the President. Obama has indicated he really is not interested in anything the GOP proposes and will veto any law that manages to make it to his desk for signing. So be it.
3
Never thought I'd see the time when the NYT Editorial Board could not count. But this is it. The GOP does NOT control Congress; a GOP-Tea Party coalition does with the Tea Party holding the balance of power. Big difference. And there are two coalition managers in each house; each with a different agenda.
Starting with his immigration initiative, Obama has hit hard at the coalition's fractures, hoping to break it. He doesn't say a word that doesn't hit at this weak spot. Last night was a perfect example.
His goals are, one, force the GOP rump to humiliate itself endlessly with the three parts of the electorate it must win in the next presidential: women, latinos and blacks. And two, to force Boehner to fail on money bills, something he did several times in the last session when his coalition failed him, thus repeatedly revealing Boehner's weaknesses and inability to legislate.
The lesson for the NYT is that is must learn to speak the language of multiparty politics, something Americans haven't had to speak since before the Civil War.
It also has to show readers that the 1787 constitution has no provision for Speakers who fail on money bills. With no snap elections, they just sit there flailing about until the next election cycle. In other words, we are in a full-blown constitutional crisis. Possibly the biggest since 1861.
Starting with his immigration initiative, Obama has hit hard at the coalition's fractures, hoping to break it. He doesn't say a word that doesn't hit at this weak spot. Last night was a perfect example.
His goals are, one, force the GOP rump to humiliate itself endlessly with the three parts of the electorate it must win in the next presidential: women, latinos and blacks. And two, to force Boehner to fail on money bills, something he did several times in the last session when his coalition failed him, thus repeatedly revealing Boehner's weaknesses and inability to legislate.
The lesson for the NYT is that is must learn to speak the language of multiparty politics, something Americans haven't had to speak since before the Civil War.
It also has to show readers that the 1787 constitution has no provision for Speakers who fail on money bills. With no snap elections, they just sit there flailing about until the next election cycle. In other words, we are in a full-blown constitutional crisis. Possibly the biggest since 1861.
2
Is this the best the NYT can do?
3
Yep, not going to consider the wishes of the people.
3
The GOP has spoken: "we reject all your proposals outright--and by the way--you (Obama) are unwilling to compromise".
6
I seems to me a bit premature to me to say that Obama is a lame duck president; he still has fully a quarter of his Presidency ahead of him. That's more of an opportunity to do the right thing for ordinary Americans than any Republican will have for the next 10 years.
5
"There is one other thing [President Obama] must do: Resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise."
Amen! The Reactionary Republicans in congress have no intention to compromise with the president. To Mr. Obama's offer of congenial , respectful debate, Republicans snarl "Benghazi."
Amen! The Reactionary Republicans in congress have no intention to compromise with the president. To Mr. Obama's offer of congenial , respectful debate, Republicans snarl "Benghazi."
6
Obama strikes me as one with class, intelligence, and determination and for the American people. This is why the Republicans are unable to work with him. They have exhibited none of the above.
7
President Obama has made more than a few mistakes in his time in the White House but overall I truly believe that he is a good man and a great President.
His SOTUS last night was about people. People who are not at the top of the economic ladder and who work for their dollars and still many cannot pay their bills and feed their families. The President knows this and so do all his critics but they, the critics, are the ones who live in Ivory Towers. They have it all. the do not have to worry about payhing bills and making sure that their children eat and have a good education.
The GOP from day one has done everything in its power to stop this President. I don't think that they've done so and last night I was very proud to be an American.
We are the United States of America. United as the President said and it's time for the GOP to stop hating and start working with the President and those across the aisle. It can be done. It should be done.
His SOTUS last night was about people. People who are not at the top of the economic ladder and who work for their dollars and still many cannot pay their bills and feed their families. The President knows this and so do all his critics but they, the critics, are the ones who live in Ivory Towers. They have it all. the do not have to worry about payhing bills and making sure that their children eat and have a good education.
The GOP from day one has done everything in its power to stop this President. I don't think that they've done so and last night I was very proud to be an American.
We are the United States of America. United as the President said and it's time for the GOP to stop hating and start working with the President and those across the aisle. It can be done. It should be done.
4
Doesn't anyone remember? Six short years ago our nation was on the brink. Today we're once again the strongest economy and the strongest country on Earth. And who gets elected? Republicans.
It's as if Bush never even happened.
It's as if Bush never even happened.
5
Strongest economy?
I disagree. The labor force participation rate is at a historical low, 63%. Hence the lowest percentage of able bodied Americans is working than at any point in our country's history. This figure is 3% less than when Obama took office.
Unemployment numbers have improved primarily because more people have stopped looking for work.
Nothing about that statistic suggests a strong recovery. And that is the very reason the Federal Reserve is hesitant to raise rates.
I disagree. The labor force participation rate is at a historical low, 63%. Hence the lowest percentage of able bodied Americans is working than at any point in our country's history. This figure is 3% less than when Obama took office.
Unemployment numbers have improved primarily because more people have stopped looking for work.
Nothing about that statistic suggests a strong recovery. And that is the very reason the Federal Reserve is hesitant to raise rates.
3
Obama will go down in history as an example of how to make the most of a lame duck presidency. His agenda hasn't a chance of passing, but he's at least now defined the debate in a stalemated legislature, and pulling the center ever so slightly to the left.
4
Couldn't you have made your point in your headline without including a reference to guns?
2
"Mr. Obama knows his prospects of getting Congress to agree are less than zero ... That does not make them irrelevant."
Really? I would think that it would.
Really? I would think that it would.
1
I believe the Republicans are earnest in their beliefs but I cannot help but think back to Britain and Ireland in the late 1840s. The British government's answer to the Irish starvation was to hand out copies of of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations to an illiterate Irish peasantry who would soon see 1.5 to 2.5 million of its constituents die in the impending starvation.
The National Film Board of Canada's 2012 film The Coffin Ship Hannah documents how it has taken 150 years for the survivors to reconcile themselves to the fact that the Irish economy saw enough beef exported to feed all the people of Ireland back in the day mass starvation. I cannot help but reflect on how the America economy 2014 so resembles Ireland of the 1840s. The 10% owned 100% of the wealth and extolled the virtue of their stewardship even as Catholics were totally excluded from government.
Nineteenth century Ireland was a a major player in the then global economy but even as the peasants starved Ireland continued to export beef, pork, grain and cheese to grace the finest tables in Europe and the Americas. I have little doubt the elite of Ireland and the landlords in Scotland and England believed they were fulfilling God's will. I have no doubt today's Republicans feel exactly the same way. America has half its public school student living in poverty and a growing demographic slipping into poverty. We are long past the expiration date for Adam Smith's economic philosophy.
The National Film Board of Canada's 2012 film The Coffin Ship Hannah documents how it has taken 150 years for the survivors to reconcile themselves to the fact that the Irish economy saw enough beef exported to feed all the people of Ireland back in the day mass starvation. I cannot help but reflect on how the America economy 2014 so resembles Ireland of the 1840s. The 10% owned 100% of the wealth and extolled the virtue of their stewardship even as Catholics were totally excluded from government.
Nineteenth century Ireland was a a major player in the then global economy but even as the peasants starved Ireland continued to export beef, pork, grain and cheese to grace the finest tables in Europe and the Americas. I have little doubt the elite of Ireland and the landlords in Scotland and England believed they were fulfilling God's will. I have no doubt today's Republicans feel exactly the same way. America has half its public school student living in poverty and a growing demographic slipping into poverty. We are long past the expiration date for Adam Smith's economic philosophy.
6
"Still Combative"? You mean "finally combative," right? This is a president who's been a political naif for his entire presidency, who didn't believe the Republicans' vow to make him a one-term president - "aw, they're just joking!" - who couldn't accept the fact that half of Congress would rather shut the government down than accept him as president.
This is a president who proclaimed that his election meant the advent of "post-partisan politics," a proclamation that displayed his fatal misunderstanding about the fundamental nature of politics: that without partisanship, there is no politics, that partisanship is absent only in totalitarian states.
We've been waiting for *six years* for this president to become "combative" - that is, fight for us the way we elected him to do. Instead, he's been a general who prefers to stay far, far behind the front lines, following his troops instead of leading them, denigrating those who carried the banner while trying to make nice with the enemy.
And now, when he's got an even worse and more powerful Congress to deal with in his last two years, *now* he gets combative? President Post-Partisan still doesn't get politics, doesn't understand that he's a lame duck quacking in the wilderness. It's going to be a lo-o-o-o-ng two years.
This is a president who proclaimed that his election meant the advent of "post-partisan politics," a proclamation that displayed his fatal misunderstanding about the fundamental nature of politics: that without partisanship, there is no politics, that partisanship is absent only in totalitarian states.
We've been waiting for *six years* for this president to become "combative" - that is, fight for us the way we elected him to do. Instead, he's been a general who prefers to stay far, far behind the front lines, following his troops instead of leading them, denigrating those who carried the banner while trying to make nice with the enemy.
And now, when he's got an even worse and more powerful Congress to deal with in his last two years, *now* he gets combative? President Post-Partisan still doesn't get politics, doesn't understand that he's a lame duck quacking in the wilderness. It's going to be a lo-o-o-o-ng two years.
15
Yawn..don't know anyone who watched this..
5
Bet you are a non-voter, too!
4
Our country is strange. We celebrate capitalism, but yet when people become wildly wealthy we condemn them while, at at the same time, we aspire to be them. Capitalism does not distribute wealth equally and never will. To suggest that it should is noble, and makes for good speeches I guess, but human nature tilts toward greed and acquisitiveness.
8
I think that Obama will have the opportunity to protect his achievements and advance his agenda. But of course he will have to make some compromises. We all understand, that 'lower taxes for the rich,' 'fewer services for the middle class,' 'less money spent to get the poor out of poverty' are not an option for compromises. As usual, Obama should do everything with careful consideration of their long-term impact in mind. If needed, wield the veto pen to avoid false compromises!
1
good speech but .....The "new Republican Congress" understands Americans' suffering from the economy, health care system and Washington gridlock and will steer the country away from President Barack Obama's failed policies, a newly minted GOP senator is promising. sounds like a justification for "invading poland"metiphorically.
1
My absolute favorite moment of The State of the Union was when Pres Obama said something like 'I won't be campaigning again'. And some republicans applauded. Pres. Obama didn't skip a beat - he just said 'because I've already won two elections". I like a President with a sense of humor and a sharp wit.
I believe Pres Obama gave a fairly accurate picture of the State of the Union. He could have spoken a bit more about poverty and food insecurity which is at epic levels especially for children in our land of the free and home of the brave. The 1% need to hear the consequences of their thievery, greed and lies.
And I would like the whole response thing by a person from the other party to stop. The President was duly elected by a majority of the American people (in this case a clear majority). This is the President's job let him do it. I have stopped listening when "the other side" starts talking. I can wait until the next day to hear what they have to say. It's difficult enough to have to see Boehner's scowl through the entire address.
I believe Pres Obama gave a fairly accurate picture of the State of the Union. He could have spoken a bit more about poverty and food insecurity which is at epic levels especially for children in our land of the free and home of the brave. The 1% need to hear the consequences of their thievery, greed and lies.
And I would like the whole response thing by a person from the other party to stop. The President was duly elected by a majority of the American people (in this case a clear majority). This is the President's job let him do it. I have stopped listening when "the other side" starts talking. I can wait until the next day to hear what they have to say. It's difficult enough to have to see Boehner's scowl through the entire address.
71
I heard that retort on the morning news. I thought it was classic Obama: thin-skinned, hypersensitive, narcissistic, small.
3
SLD
Tip: Watch the address on the White House website. The shot is always framed so you don't have to look at Boehner!! It's also lovely to watch the entire speech free of any commentary.
Tip: Watch the address on the White House website. The shot is always framed so you don't have to look at Boehner!! It's also lovely to watch the entire speech free of any commentary.
2
Agree, that was the best moment as the eternally rude and obnoxious GOP applaud at his statement about not campaigning again, the very well-mannered, witty, and stick to the facts President did the mother of all slap-downs to the GOP, "because I was elected twice" with the not said but understood rest of the sentence, and you GOP hypocrites weren't. Nothing succeds like success, and President Obama succeeded in the last two elections.
1
Last night's prime time performances certainly highlighted the differences between the Democratic President and the Republican Congress.
The President: "Here are the things I'm interested in. I'm sure we don't agree on all of these points, but let's do our jobs and find some common ground for the good of the American people."
The Republican Respondent: "My Congressional colleagues and I have plastic bread bags over our shoes and our own agenda. It's up to the President to get in line with us."
While we may be in for a tough winter due to climate change, I think the plastic bread bags are to protect from another substance that's being spread around.
The President: "Here are the things I'm interested in. I'm sure we don't agree on all of these points, but let's do our jobs and find some common ground for the good of the American people."
The Republican Respondent: "My Congressional colleagues and I have plastic bread bags over our shoes and our own agenda. It's up to the President to get in line with us."
While we may be in for a tough winter due to climate change, I think the plastic bread bags are to protect from another substance that's being spread around.
6
It was a good show... no matter just our political show... he "showed up" and "came to play" as required. I would love to have seen him tell the "Sons of Bushes" in congress to go form their own country instead of ruining ours. It's the 21st century.. time to move ahead of 19th Century ideals.
5
Continue to put forth your fair minded, positive agenda POTUS for the democracy and its true citizens are not 'confused about where the responsibility lies".
4
There was nothing combative in this speech...It is either a poor choice of words or the press is gearing up to set the stage for an "outgunned" President battling the GOP for the next two years, which would take me to a whole new level of feeling miserable. While this is going on in politics, I keep thinking about my reality as a salaried employee and the financial decline that I am (and millions like me) are experiencing. I make enough to "live" but I not enough to save or invest. I read somewhere in this paper that salaries have been stagnant or below inflation rate growth since 2000 while productivity of workers has risen by 14% during the same time. The rise in productivity are the record profits that companies, their stockholders and CEO's have reaped. I sometimes think American workers are too tired or too worn out to notice or to care. I wish there would be someone combative out there to help with the fight. Mr. Obama knows how the cards are stacked but this being politics, he is not combative enough for my taste. I will never be rich but I want to be compensated fairly for my labor. That hasn't happened for a long time.
39
I feel your pain. Combativeness is one reason why I like Elizabeth Warren. I'm thrilled when she wags her finger and calls some political numbskull out.
5
Here's a thought experiment. Assume that voting in the US was mandatory, as is the case in some other democracies, like Australia. Would a republican ever get elected to the presidency? Very, very unlikely, unless they shifted radically to the left. The secret to why conservatives get elected to national office is vote suppression.
3
Voter suppression? Either we want to vote or not. Its not the 1950's deep south anymore. Today, any one who votes can votes. problem is even dead people seem to be voting these days. How about voter fraud? There were several districts in the US during the last presidential election that 100% of votes went towards Obama. Really? Not one accidental vote against? Several other districts that went heavily for Obama were found to have enough discrepancies to be recommended for investigation. So voter suppression? No. however it needs to be that every sate, every district, every voter needs to prove that they are a US citizen. That is just common sense.
1
bingo. prohibiting incarcerated persons from exercising their voting franchises (inmates can vote in australia) while simultaneously, and I believe intentionally, incarcerating blacks at a grossly disproportionate rate, and obstructing students, elders, and poor people at the polls with bogus voter ID laws (there is, in fact, very little evidence of voter fraud at the polls)will tilt the vote to the Rs - in a big big way.
2
If President Obama had made speeches like this before the elections Democrats might have won more seats
6
Seriously? I'm pretty sure most voters voted based on what they see and experience, not based on the speeches. Voters were obviously not happy in 2014 with the performance of those in power, mainly the Democratic Congress.
2
You nailed him on the "false promise of compromise." Now if you only would insist that your reporters do not fill articles with this gooble gobble along with the false equivalency on important topics such as immigration, climate change, and police reform.
1
The GOP is whining about the President's refusal to compromise. How is this possible, given the politically mature comity exhibited by Republicans Since January, 2009? Republicans further complain that "this President," as they put it, is ignoring the will of the voters. How does this square with uncompromising GOP behavior in the wake of two, convincing presidental victories in 2008 and 2012?
The hypocrisy is deafening.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The hypocrisy is deafening.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
9
The President must "resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise". I almost laughed out loud. It seems to me that the Imperial Presidency has successfully resisted the instinct for the last six years.
1
Mr. Obama nailed it, in tone and substance.
As for the glued-to-their-seats Republicans, churlish to the end, I thought the President had an apt response while describing how his administration managed (despite Congress) to resurrect an economy that his predecessor gutted: these are good things.
You shouldn't have to explain to Congress that an economic turnaround after the Republican-caused Great Recession is a thumbs up event, but it was necessary and the President did it succinctly and with good humor.
As for the glued-to-their-seats Republicans, churlish to the end, I thought the President had an apt response while describing how his administration managed (despite Congress) to resurrect an economy that his predecessor gutted: these are good things.
You shouldn't have to explain to Congress that an economic turnaround after the Republican-caused Great Recession is a thumbs up event, but it was necessary and the President did it succinctly and with good humor.
12
"Hillary Rodham Clinton or whomever the Democrats nominate cannot ignore them now."
Um... That's WHOEVER the Democrats nominate. Along with "Hillary Rodham Clinton," it is the subject of the sentence, companion to the verb "cannot ignore." Admittedly, not the most important point, but 99 times out of 100 overreaching and missing is worse than just keeping it simple.
Yes, I know, easy to snipe from the sidelines. Carry on.
Um... That's WHOEVER the Democrats nominate. Along with "Hillary Rodham Clinton," it is the subject of the sentence, companion to the verb "cannot ignore." Admittedly, not the most important point, but 99 times out of 100 overreaching and missing is worse than just keeping it simple.
Yes, I know, easy to snipe from the sidelines. Carry on.
4
"Gridlock seems almost foreordained over the next two years. Mr. Obama should do nothing to confuse the voters as to where the responsibility lies."
It would help if our vaunted 4th Estate where to shoulder its share of the burden of the American experiment and let Americans know what really is going on in Washington and other capitals around the country.
Instead of airing the opinions of republicans that Obama is_______(fill in the blank) they could begin the airing of facts; republicans have been in charge of congress the last 4 years and have done nothing to help the average American. NOTHING. Those are facts that have been missing in this debate.
It would help if our vaunted 4th Estate where to shoulder its share of the burden of the American experiment and let Americans know what really is going on in Washington and other capitals around the country.
Instead of airing the opinions of republicans that Obama is_______(fill in the blank) they could begin the airing of facts; republicans have been in charge of congress the last 4 years and have done nothing to help the average American. NOTHING. Those are facts that have been missing in this debate.
3
The ignorance of reality demonstrated by the Obama fanbot clapping seals on this thread is truly astonishing. The "agenda" laid out by Obama has no chance of being enacted - none. Ask yourself this, why is he only now taking this stance? It's because the stakes are so low that it's the only time in his presidency that he could get away with such a thing.
You see, all you rabid Progressive-Marxists out there, he's playing you to rev you up for the primaries. When Obama had real political power, he was incompetent with it. He failed to build constructive relationships with his own party leaders in congress, forget the Republicans. He never built any kind of governing coalition.
But all he has to do is utter the right words and it's as though we don't have 6 years of actual failed leadership and vision to hold him to account for. Sad, so sad. Some silly person is going on about the Koch brothers on this thread - I mean, can you see how delusional and disconnected from reality the Left has become?
You see, all you rabid Progressive-Marxists out there, he's playing you to rev you up for the primaries. When Obama had real political power, he was incompetent with it. He failed to build constructive relationships with his own party leaders in congress, forget the Republicans. He never built any kind of governing coalition.
But all he has to do is utter the right words and it's as though we don't have 6 years of actual failed leadership and vision to hold him to account for. Sad, so sad. Some silly person is going on about the Koch brothers on this thread - I mean, can you see how delusional and disconnected from reality the Left has become?
4
"Skimming from the rich" seems like Robin Hood banditry--in keeping with the "social gospel" wing of Bible readers.
But the fundamental issue is property and tax rights and duties themselves. Property is not the goods, but rights and duties regarding them. The Haves have rights; Have-nots have duties--like "no trespassing" and "obedience-for money"--all protected by civil and criminal law.
"Self made men" are like the gods of mythology. How much wealth is due to an educated, healthy, cooperative, peace loving, law abiding, hard working populace with a "common-wealth" of infrastructure?
A lot obviously. Some have said "equality"--not just in opportunity but in actual income. All cogs in the economic wheel are equally necessary. True--but they are not equally responsible for the works; nor are they equally replaceable.
Inequality can be just--given equal opportunity to acquire the wherewithal to climb the heights of responsibility, talent and drive. Otherwise it's merely prejudice--since your ancestors were wealthy, you deserve to be wealthy too. The sins and virtues fathers get visited on future generations; regardless of their personal merits or demerits they reap the penalties or rewards.
Civility costs; how should they be distributed? 28% would be fair if only 28% of a billionaire's wealth is due to the "background" political-cultural-economy, instead of utterly impossible without it. E.g--Intellectual property is hardly a god given or "natural right."
But the fundamental issue is property and tax rights and duties themselves. Property is not the goods, but rights and duties regarding them. The Haves have rights; Have-nots have duties--like "no trespassing" and "obedience-for money"--all protected by civil and criminal law.
"Self made men" are like the gods of mythology. How much wealth is due to an educated, healthy, cooperative, peace loving, law abiding, hard working populace with a "common-wealth" of infrastructure?
A lot obviously. Some have said "equality"--not just in opportunity but in actual income. All cogs in the economic wheel are equally necessary. True--but they are not equally responsible for the works; nor are they equally replaceable.
Inequality can be just--given equal opportunity to acquire the wherewithal to climb the heights of responsibility, talent and drive. Otherwise it's merely prejudice--since your ancestors were wealthy, you deserve to be wealthy too. The sins and virtues fathers get visited on future generations; regardless of their personal merits or demerits they reap the penalties or rewards.
Civility costs; how should they be distributed? 28% would be fair if only 28% of a billionaire's wealth is due to the "background" political-cultural-economy, instead of utterly impossible without it. E.g--Intellectual property is hardly a god given or "natural right."
NYT gives another free pass to Obama, uses the phrase "middle class" indiscriminately, as though denying the tightness of the class structure, and not a word on foreign policy, as though it didn't matter. Look to further interventions, further containment of Russia (his remark on Putin in the speech) and China (again, the speech--only the US, via the Trans-Pacific Partnership, has the right to draw up the ground rules affecting Asian trade), further drone assassinations, further mischief in Iran (the speech: all options are on the table). As for the "middle class" and its prospects, taxation of the wealthy (this will NOT be passed) hardly offsets everything about this administration: its pro-business policies, support of deregulation, mergers green-light and attendant wealth concentration and monopolism, etc.
Terrorism, his patriotic fervor undiminished, is Obama's strong card for silencing or otherwise distracting the need for dissent, and, shame, The Times has not a word for massive surveillance and the abrogation of civil liberties.
Credit Obama all you want, demonize Republicans ditto, yet the fact remains of bipartisan unity on the retrograde features of US policy, bringing the nation very close to the edges of fascism. Obama pulled out all the patriotic stops, and Democrats, as usual, applauded. Cody Keenan wrote a masterpiece worthy of inclusion in textbooks on mass persuasion--just what his boss ordered.
Terrorism, his patriotic fervor undiminished, is Obama's strong card for silencing or otherwise distracting the need for dissent, and, shame, The Times has not a word for massive surveillance and the abrogation of civil liberties.
Credit Obama all you want, demonize Republicans ditto, yet the fact remains of bipartisan unity on the retrograde features of US policy, bringing the nation very close to the edges of fascism. Obama pulled out all the patriotic stops, and Democrats, as usual, applauded. Cody Keenan wrote a masterpiece worthy of inclusion in textbooks on mass persuasion--just what his boss ordered.
3
Too little, too late. The President had a chance to help the middle class in his first two years when Democrats controlled both Senate and House. Not now.
8
I'd like to know where these proposals were in 2009? They didn't got rid of the billionaire hedge fund tax rate of 15% which absolutely criminal. One knows why, Obama wanted a second term and the Senate Democrats were more about tax cuts than taking the opportunity to rebuild the ailing middle class or raising the poor. Quantitative Easing which was a sop to the banks and the big financial interest was the best that could be done. Now they have nothing to lose. Clearly the world is heading toward instability and dislocation if something isn't done to end the greed is good ideology of the liaise faire Republicans.
9
Yes, no wasted time on trying to be "bi-partisan", which is a fantasy that only the benighted or deluded, such as David Brooks, entertain. McConnell said, after the speech, that Obama doesn't set the agenda in Congress; the Republicans do. Correct, but Obama may shred their agenda, which is as everyone knows to try to undo his accomplishments when the Democrats were in charge. If anything gets passed in the Senate, which is doubtful, Obama should veto it. Anyone in the WH suggesting making a "grand bargain" with the Republicans should be fired.
22
Obama's top priority should be to make Mitch McConnell a one-term leader of the Senate.
4
Yes -Just say No to any compromise.My way or highway -great strategy
1
This weak editorial ignores that Obama and his self-serving Fed have been the driving forces behind rising income inequality. During the past 6 years, they have transferred trillions of tax dollars and lost interest on savings from the middle classes to the 1%, bringing income inequality into national focus. And Obamacare is basically a new tax on working middle class Americans who don't qualify for taxpayer subsidies. Nothing being proposed now appears sufficient to reverse the harmful effects of federal policies on the middle class during the past 6 years.
5
I am so glad there is one rational, intelligent, compassionate guy at the top, along with a good few stalwarts (*not* just Elizabeth Warren) fighting the good fight. I am surprised to see the guy I voted for turn up again, but regret that his colleagues were unable to appreciate the solid gold at his core.
That said, his embrace of business as usual with the money industry and willingness to concede that their cosmetic disguise of rampant greed is necessary to keep commerce running, are sad. It seems to be in his nature to overtrust in that area.
And even worse, is the TPP trade agreement. It cannot be said often enough that giving corporations power over governments is a long dangerous path. The only entity capable of pulling back on exploitation, even if it usually fails to do so, is the community in which these corporations have to operate. If that community is not given a voice, the poisoning will go on. The idea that a corporation can sue a government for lost profits is mindbogglingly backwards. If our warlords only wield money, that is a weapon well able to subdue those who don't have enough.
The peril of "progress" (and I'm very happy with my comforts, thank you very much) is that it is too easily identified with turning a blind eye to pollution, physical and societal. This is more than dangerous, as we all should know by now.
That said, his embrace of business as usual with the money industry and willingness to concede that their cosmetic disguise of rampant greed is necessary to keep commerce running, are sad. It seems to be in his nature to overtrust in that area.
And even worse, is the TPP trade agreement. It cannot be said often enough that giving corporations power over governments is a long dangerous path. The only entity capable of pulling back on exploitation, even if it usually fails to do so, is the community in which these corporations have to operate. If that community is not given a voice, the poisoning will go on. The idea that a corporation can sue a government for lost profits is mindbogglingly backwards. If our warlords only wield money, that is a weapon well able to subdue those who don't have enough.
The peril of "progress" (and I'm very happy with my comforts, thank you very much) is that it is too easily identified with turning a blind eye to pollution, physical and societal. This is more than dangerous, as we all should know by now.
9
Let's face it. Obama has always been a great speech maker, but his words end up empty. He starts off meaning well, but then he flip flops on everything important (such as on campaign financing, closing Guantanamo, getting the US out of Afghanistan, public option for the "Affordable Care Act." You may as well believe that Lucy will not move the football just as Charlie Brown is about to kick it.
11
I don't see that he has flip flopped as much as he has pushed for certain things but had to settle for what was possible. Republicans along with the Supreme Court blocked campaign finance reform, they stood in the way of closing Gitmo, situation in Afghanistan has stalled our leaving, public option for ACA couldn't get past Congress especially after Ted Kennedy's 60th vote was lost. He has accomplished an amazing amount, not as much as he or some of us would have like against overwhelming odds having started his Presidency with multiple global and national crisis events happening daily.
8
One important thing I love about President Obama is that I believe he is living and working by the prescription of Thomas Watson, the founder of IBM, who once famously said:
“…it's very difficult to build and very easy to destroy.”
Why is this important? It is because building creates benefits and rewards for everyone.
In contrast, the GOP Republicans have demonstrated their penchant to obstruct, obfuscate, blackmail, badger and threaten any positive policy proposal that President Obama has proposed since he first took office. The GOP Republicans have taken the easy path to destroy than to build a stronger and improved America. One of the functions of the GOP is to oppose but an important objective of Government by Congress is to put America first and this will require policy building strategies through dialogue and compromise with the need to explore and find good solutions to difficult problems. But the GOP Republicans want nothing of this. I suspect that there is a race issue at play here with President Obama being the first black president and to most Republicans this is too much to bear.
Let’s face it: President Obama has been, is and will continue to be a very good President. He is combative, intelligent, witty and takes on challenges of all kinds with a zeal and energy that most people would find very difficult.
And what do the GOP Republicans have to offer: Policy proposals that will benefit their rich patrons at the expense of everyone else.
“…it's very difficult to build and very easy to destroy.”
Why is this important? It is because building creates benefits and rewards for everyone.
In contrast, the GOP Republicans have demonstrated their penchant to obstruct, obfuscate, blackmail, badger and threaten any positive policy proposal that President Obama has proposed since he first took office. The GOP Republicans have taken the easy path to destroy than to build a stronger and improved America. One of the functions of the GOP is to oppose but an important objective of Government by Congress is to put America first and this will require policy building strategies through dialogue and compromise with the need to explore and find good solutions to difficult problems. But the GOP Republicans want nothing of this. I suspect that there is a race issue at play here with President Obama being the first black president and to most Republicans this is too much to bear.
Let’s face it: President Obama has been, is and will continue to be a very good President. He is combative, intelligent, witty and takes on challenges of all kinds with a zeal and energy that most people would find very difficult.
And what do the GOP Republicans have to offer: Policy proposals that will benefit their rich patrons at the expense of everyone else.
24
"His remedy: skim from the rich and redistribute to those below, while deploying other weapons to raise wages and increase jobs."
Ever since Reagan, the rich have been skimming from those below to redistribute to themselves. Let's reverse the process for 30 years to get to where we started.
Ever since Reagan, the rich have been skimming from those below to redistribute to themselves. Let's reverse the process for 30 years to get to where we started.
18
It is not about Dems and Republicans, the right attitude, or the success or failure of proposals in the next two years. In history, Obama's speech will be seen as an important early articulation of what is a growing realization that the systems we have in place - the economic system, the political system, the education system, and the media - are not working in a way that is fair and good for "the people," meaning the great bulk of our citizens who are not able to do what Jefferson and his cohorts said was fundamental - to pursue happiness. The spectacular few love their money and their control. How will democracy fare and will leaders emerge who will pursue the changes that are needed?
7
President Obama needs to fight fire with fire, and I think six years of trying to engage Republicans has shown him that there is no working with them. Republicans, to borrow the parlance of their favorite propagandists, hate Americans - except for those willing to bankroll their campaigns. If President Obama points that out daily, he will have done more for this nation than all of his other efforts combined.
15
If the Government has already taxed me on my earned income why should I pay taxes on investment: Capital gain, dividend or otherwise? I could lose my shirt on my investment. Will the government compensate me for my losses? Investment taxes are robbery. Obama should not be asking for raising them, he rather should be asking for razing them.
4
I do believe there is a place in the tax code and a form for writing off losses.
Investment gains are additional gains on money working for you. Profit is income. You are not being taxes on the initial investment but on the money that investment makes. Why should someone making millions in profits on stock market bets (because these days many investments are more like gambling casinos on debt rather than investments in business growth) pay less percentage in taxes than some 40 hour+ working person with a middle class income barely making ends meet?
Investment gains are additional gains on money working for you. Profit is income. You are not being taxes on the initial investment but on the money that investment makes. Why should someone making millions in profits on stock market bets (because these days many investments are more like gambling casinos on debt rather than investments in business growth) pay less percentage in taxes than some 40 hour+ working person with a middle class income barely making ends meet?
8
I believe he is proposing raising the capital gains for those take more than $500,000 per year. Many of those people have little or no earned income and therefore have a lower tax rate than most of us who earn our income by actually going to work. And actually you can write off investment losses in your taxes.
2
If you lose your shirt, you take the loss on your taxes, don't you?
Reagan's message was that if government gave back people their tax dollars and left people to do as they wanted, that the people would create a dynamic and booming economy that would make all richer and more secure than could any efforts by the people using their government to achieve those ends. Well, after nearly thirty five years, the results are in. The wealth of this nation has been concentrated amongst an investor class of individuals and corporations who have prospered and gained control of more and more wealth and nobody else even while the productivity of those left out has grown and grown. By the middle of G.W. Bush's first term more and more people were borrowing in order to maintain their standard of living and when the bubbles burst the real cost of this disparity of wealth has proven to be the economy because the economy depended upon everyone getting richer to grow rapidly enough to justify continuing investments. Labor, capital, infrastructure, law, basic research and product innovation, good management and good organization are the factors needed to have an booming economy neglecting any has a big price. That holistic approach to our national needs is what President Obama's speech was all about.
81
If Obama was truly interested in the well being of the middle class, he could have started helping them years ago by putting a few Wall Street bankers in prison.
70
@bobdc6:
I'm all for jailing the likes of Fuld and Mozilo, but I don't quite see how that helps the middle class.
I'm all for jailing the likes of Fuld and Mozilo, but I don't quite see how that helps the middle class.
2
When Wall Street banks crashed the world economy, the middle class was badly hurt. If a few WS bankers went to prison, the others would finally notice and would change their destructive behavior.
1
Yes, beware of "false promise of compromise"! President Obama has been accused of being the extreme leftist that he wasn't, so let's go there.
1
I will NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN!! It is truly a travesty what Republicans have done to this President. President Obama has truly tried to help this country, and all Republicans can do is tear it down. They are truly horrible!! That Joni Earnest was awful - as a woman I was less than impressed.
11
Last night, President Obama earned the right to tell off the obstructionist
REP-brobates...with tight lipped Boehner as the metaphor for the hostility the GOP has shown him and imposed on our country.
In deserved celebration of his successes, defying all the odds and the unabated onslaught from the GOP, he finally has cornered these curs. It will take everything he has to round up the tepid Dems...refute the FOX News lies...veto the KOCH Brothers/PAC money manipulations of our government...and show these Republican hijackers (who've also screwed up their own party!) that the American voters have finally figured it out.
I thank my lucky stars daily, that it's Obama... and not Romney...nor McCain...who is running the show.
REP-brobates...with tight lipped Boehner as the metaphor for the hostility the GOP has shown him and imposed on our country.
In deserved celebration of his successes, defying all the odds and the unabated onslaught from the GOP, he finally has cornered these curs. It will take everything he has to round up the tepid Dems...refute the FOX News lies...veto the KOCH Brothers/PAC money manipulations of our government...and show these Republican hijackers (who've also screwed up their own party!) that the American voters have finally figured it out.
I thank my lucky stars daily, that it's Obama... and not Romney...nor McCain...who is running the show.
16
Boehner is tight lipped because he does not want his tobacco chaw to fall out.
1
How many Presidents of the United States do we have who won two elections by an electoral and popular vote majority?
How many elected members of the United States Congress do we have in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives do we have?
How many selected members of the Supreme Court of the United States do we have?
On a solar scale the President is a Class G2V main sequence star. While the Congress is combination of asteroids in the asteroid belt and comets and other bodies in the Kuiper Belt and Oort cloud. And the SCOTUS are merely man-made satellites.
Using guns as a metaphor is in very poor taste. In a nation where 30,000 Americans die from gunshots every year including 20,000 or 2/3rds are suicides. How many of the mass or serial killings are the result of mental illness?
In his State of the Union POTUS Obama finally showed some real common street sense by using his erudite articulate calm cool demeanor and manner against the barking braying political enemy pack herd. And then turning and walking away in the ultimate bad street macho display of power and confidence. Physical violence is weakness. This is akin to the Plains Indian concept of counting coup aka touching the enemy and calmly turning your back and riding or walking away.
The White House is still the home of an imaginary Kenyan Luo Arab Muslim socialist usurper and his dusky Bantu wife and daughters and mother-in-law. Perhaps the Congress is out-speared and out-shielded?
How many elected members of the United States Congress do we have in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives do we have?
How many selected members of the Supreme Court of the United States do we have?
On a solar scale the President is a Class G2V main sequence star. While the Congress is combination of asteroids in the asteroid belt and comets and other bodies in the Kuiper Belt and Oort cloud. And the SCOTUS are merely man-made satellites.
Using guns as a metaphor is in very poor taste. In a nation where 30,000 Americans die from gunshots every year including 20,000 or 2/3rds are suicides. How many of the mass or serial killings are the result of mental illness?
In his State of the Union POTUS Obama finally showed some real common street sense by using his erudite articulate calm cool demeanor and manner against the barking braying political enemy pack herd. And then turning and walking away in the ultimate bad street macho display of power and confidence. Physical violence is weakness. This is akin to the Plains Indian concept of counting coup aka touching the enemy and calmly turning your back and riding or walking away.
The White House is still the home of an imaginary Kenyan Luo Arab Muslim socialist usurper and his dusky Bantu wife and daughters and mother-in-law. Perhaps the Congress is out-speared and out-shielded?
7
Mitch McConnell wasted no time in miraculously turning the economy around by the magic of him becoming majority leader. Instead of showing gratitude, President Obama will continue his class warfare, taxing, spending, regulating, redistributing wealth, and obstructing the McConnell Economy. Democrats campaign strategy in 2014 "We Don't Like Obama Either" didn't work out too well for them. Now it remains to be seen whether they will complete their capitulation and join the Koch Revolution. Schumer's post-election Obamacare mea culpa speech may be a sign of things to come.
2
Please... Koch Brothers will have most of us panhandling and wearing gas masks.
1
If only the President had come out with this strong message and the Democrats up for election campaigned on these ideas and stood with the President. I believe Congress would look different today. Well, here's hoping the next campaign cycle only strengthens the Progressive agenda - Let's shout it from the rooftops: Our government does not belong to the highest bidder- it belongs to US! The American Dream is too big to fail.
6
"President Obama should also seek out opportunities to use his executive authority to improve conditions for the middle class and for workers... use the bully pulpit on important matters like improving the minimum wage."
Yes, I think what happened is that the President finally woke up to his real power. He went from BULLY to BULLY PULPIT. After six years of mediocre speeches and wimpish leadership, Obama may have woken up.
I believe Obama is going back to his "Audacity of Hope", which he got from his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And before that, there was Jesse Jackson's KEEP HOPE ALIVE.
If the President keeps repeating his message of hope, for the next two years, he may indeed become a good leader. And then in 2016...?
Yes, we can!
===========
www.EconomyWiseUP.com
Yes, I think what happened is that the President finally woke up to his real power. He went from BULLY to BULLY PULPIT. After six years of mediocre speeches and wimpish leadership, Obama may have woken up.
I believe Obama is going back to his "Audacity of Hope", which he got from his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And before that, there was Jesse Jackson's KEEP HOPE ALIVE.
If the President keeps repeating his message of hope, for the next two years, he may indeed become a good leader. And then in 2016...?
Yes, we can!
===========
www.EconomyWiseUP.com
8
The only part of the president's speech that I found unpersuasive and frankly disingenuous was his closing statement about our "values."
"There's one last pillar to our leadership – and that's the example of our values. As Americans, we respect human dignity, even when we're threatened, which is why I've prohibited torture, and worked to make sure our use of new technology like drones is properly constrained."
Until we prosecute all the Bush era torturers/war criminals, completely close Guantanamo, and put an end to our extra-judicial killer drone program, we have zero credibility when it comes to leading by example and respecting human dignity and human rights.
"There's one last pillar to our leadership – and that's the example of our values. As Americans, we respect human dignity, even when we're threatened, which is why I've prohibited torture, and worked to make sure our use of new technology like drones is properly constrained."
Until we prosecute all the Bush era torturers/war criminals, completely close Guantanamo, and put an end to our extra-judicial killer drone program, we have zero credibility when it comes to leading by example and respecting human dignity and human rights.
2
He has made the GOP look like dinosaurs. Very skilled performance by the president which leaves the GOP fighting for an out of date agenda and defines the Democratic vision for the future.
13
If anyone had any doubts that the Republicans are there to serve the Koch brothers and other rich benefactors, they were erased last night. Even when the President talked about basic human needs of the middle class, the Republicans sat there, stonefaced. And the Republican response was a false appeal to the middle class, an audience they never really intend to serve. Sen. Ernst started out by trying to sweet-talk middle-class voters, but just a minute or two into the rebuttal, she was already touting the Keystone XL pipeline and once again repeating GOP lies that the project will create thousands of jobs when we all know that only 35 permanent positions will be created.
The President struggled for a solution to the gridlock last night, but a real solution is to sweep out the GOP (and a number of Democrats, as well) and start over. Voters in 2016 need to remember just these three words: "Vote your interests."
The President struggled for a solution to the gridlock last night, but a real solution is to sweep out the GOP (and a number of Democrats, as well) and start over. Voters in 2016 need to remember just these three words: "Vote your interests."
14
The very wealthy in the US, as in Canada, seem to have forgotten that they have become so extremely wealthy because the laws, such as tax, patent, monopoly and import laws, enabling their accumulation of wealth have been approved by democratic processes and these laws can be reversed by the same processes.
The fact that some of the extremely wealthy are willing to use their wealth to shape public opinion to favor their interests at the expense of the other 99.999% will one day become the dominant political fact. Voters cannot be expected to accept high cost healthcare, low quality education and the like forever.
The fact that some of the extremely wealthy are willing to use their wealth to shape public opinion to favor their interests at the expense of the other 99.999% will one day become the dominant political fact. Voters cannot be expected to accept high cost healthcare, low quality education and the like forever.
8
So, in summary, Obama gave a really nice speech. Not news; we already know he gives really good speeches. But his talk of compromise falls flat when he jams the biggest social program in history, rewrites our nation's immigration laws, makes race the focus of our criminal justice system, etc.--all without consulting a single Republican and often without a single Republican vote. He is just as much to blame for gridlock as Congress is. And now that the GOP is in control, they will put forth the bills and budgets they want; the only choice he will have is whether to concede to the majority or become the "President of No."
5
Well I am certainly opposed to the bills and budgets that the Republicans want...they are destructive to the majority of the country which the recession and deficits that have followed their agendas have shown. Plus I object to you saying that he "rewrote immigration law" -- as he did no such thing. He just prioritized deportations on the stretched budget to criminals, or recent arrivals until some form of immigration reform is passed. Race IS a problem in our criminal justice system - acknowledging that is the first step to correcting the problem. I hope he can be the President of NO if the GOP agenda continues down its path of working for the high end donors at the expense of the American people.
9
"He is just as much to blame for gridlock as Congress is."
Oh, the delusion!
Oh, the delusion!
1
The President says he is not running again and has nothing to lose. He then makes a defiant speech which the Times points out guarantees he will accomplish nothing. It seems to me that a conciliatory stance met by further Republican negativism would play far better than the path he has taken and would offer the possibility that something would get done. A speech that proposes a lot of good ideas that are going nowhere is a bad idea.
3
He could have been on his knees in conciliatory speech to the GOP and STILL they would oppose and obstruct him. Because that is all they have been about since he took office. So it's better to show America what he really stands for and expose what it is that the Republican agenda would really do to the country.
13
The country is in constant campaign mode and this speech just continues the campaign. It seems the politicians are always looking for that brief, shining moment when they control everything. That happens once in awhile, Obama had it for two years. I know that partisans were happy with his speech, although lamenting it came too late. The reality is that there are some things both parties might be able to agree upon such as infrastructure spending and corporate tax reform. This is where I would have hoped the emphasis would have been and I hope that Congress focuses upon. I doubt that this will occur. Both sides will likely act like petulant children scheming for the next election.
12
I don't think talking about measures to deal with issues like wage stagnation, the need for community college education and childcare are partisan issues ...yours is a harsh world my friend.
2
Not BOTH sides, false equivalency. The GOP from day 1, McConnell, et all, have obstructive every bill or benefit for the middle and poor "classes". Their greedy pandering to the 1% and bought by them as well is anti democracy.
If President Obama sticks to his State of the Union address formulation not only would he have brought the equity issue back to the centerstage of public discourse but would also help turn the American capitalism more inclusive gone socially divisive and cruel of late.
7
For pity's sake.
Outgunned? He is president. This rhetoric makes him subordinate in a power relationship. Gosh, why such demeaning and inaccurTe rhetorical choices?
Skim and redistribute? The evidence is that the oligarchs are skimming rents with the help of many skimmers including those whose faces show up in the bathroom mirrors of the NYT editorial staff.
Pathetic and intellectual craven and dishonest. And I am a critic of Obama.
Outgunned? He is president. This rhetoric makes him subordinate in a power relationship. Gosh, why such demeaning and inaccurTe rhetorical choices?
Skim and redistribute? The evidence is that the oligarchs are skimming rents with the help of many skimmers including those whose faces show up in the bathroom mirrors of the NYT editorial staff.
Pathetic and intellectual craven and dishonest. And I am a critic of Obama.
5
Oh, sure you are.
2
Lily
You must be a pseudo conservative. That is the leading diagnosis for Americans for whom reality is irrelevant to factual positions. Some of my criticisms of Obama here have been deleted for being too extreme. But you know the fact free truth, being pseudo conservative. Narcissistic sulks uber alles.
You must be a pseudo conservative. That is the leading diagnosis for Americans for whom reality is irrelevant to factual positions. Some of my criticisms of Obama here have been deleted for being too extreme. But you know the fact free truth, being pseudo conservative. Narcissistic sulks uber alles.
"Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?"
I came from nothing and do really well now, maybe not "spectacularly" but better than I could imagine. I have been dead broke more than once but my hard work and risks I took paid off. That's why quotes like the above bother me. In a down economy, I made it. Stop with the excuses everyone! Get working. Be innovative. The American Dream has never been more alive.
I came from nothing and do really well now, maybe not "spectacularly" but better than I could imagine. I have been dead broke more than once but my hard work and risks I took paid off. That's why quotes like the above bother me. In a down economy, I made it. Stop with the excuses everyone! Get working. Be innovative. The American Dream has never been more alive.
4
Mr Obama got in the lifeboat of state 6 years ago and began directing operations. His first proposed solution to our terrifying problems in 2008 was to fix the hole in the boat's bottom by drilling another, larger hole to let out all of the water that continually leaked in.
After 6 years watching this somewhat counterintuitive attempt to right our affairs, he has decided that swift and desperate bailing are now in order. I always felt that there was a lack of any real direction or original thinking in this administration.
After 6 years watching this somewhat counterintuitive attempt to right our affairs, he has decided that swift and desperate bailing are now in order. I always felt that there was a lack of any real direction or original thinking in this administration.
5
Is the Nation better or worse off than it was 6 years ago?
2
Finally. Someone who gets it! Obama has no clue on how to govern or how the economy works. Tax a 529 that I saved for 15 years so my son could get an decent education? How is that helping the middle class? Stop new programs and pay down debt! America voted to put this Communist in check. He had the Senate for six years. How that work out for us?
Why not give specific policy decisions to support your argument instead of speaking in metaphors?
3
No, the President is not "Still" Combative, he is just beginning to get his sea legs in in his presidency and be combative.
Too bad it took Obama 6 years to get started, given the Republican openly avowed determination from day 1 after Obama was elected in 2008 to make sure he fails, and anything constructive never happens to the people of this country while Obama (or any Democrat) is in the White House.
The corporate media were no help to Obama in educating the citizenry about what was going on and its impact, and the weasly, wimpy Democrats--who distanced themselves from the Obama in 2014 rather than stand proud for Democratic principles and concerns about the middle class--lost the midterm election to the always proud, upbeat, and predictably on the wrong side of every issue Republican contenders for the House and Senate.
Keep up fighting the good fight, Mr. President. We little people in the middle and working classes can only hope more Democrats will join with you.
Too bad it took Obama 6 years to get started, given the Republican openly avowed determination from day 1 after Obama was elected in 2008 to make sure he fails, and anything constructive never happens to the people of this country while Obama (or any Democrat) is in the White House.
The corporate media were no help to Obama in educating the citizenry about what was going on and its impact, and the weasly, wimpy Democrats--who distanced themselves from the Obama in 2014 rather than stand proud for Democratic principles and concerns about the middle class--lost the midterm election to the always proud, upbeat, and predictably on the wrong side of every issue Republican contenders for the House and Senate.
Keep up fighting the good fight, Mr. President. We little people in the middle and working classes can only hope more Democrats will join with you.
21
“the president’s proposal would…would impose ordinary income tax rates on dividends”
YES!!! But, please. Call it what it is – UNEARNED income. It’s about time that workers stop bearing such an unfair burden. Wall St. doesn’t need the help that Main St. does.
Of course, Republicans are calling this and other fair proposals by the President, such as “end[ing] a provision in the tax code that shields hundreds of billions (!) of dollars in appreciated wealth passed on to heirs” all sorts of nasty names. Like, ‘class warfare’ and ‘wealth distribution.’ Which is rich (as it were), considering the warfare waged (and won) against the poor and the middle class for far too long; and the massive redistribution of wealth into so very few hands in such a very short time.
This is the economic version of global warming – denied, ignored, and worsened by GOP policies. The current situation already is unsustainable. Failing to correct it may win the GOP more campaign contributions in the short term; ultimately, it will prove to be stupid, counterproductive and (I fear) tragic for us all.
Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner’s face told us what lies ahead.
YES!!! But, please. Call it what it is – UNEARNED income. It’s about time that workers stop bearing such an unfair burden. Wall St. doesn’t need the help that Main St. does.
Of course, Republicans are calling this and other fair proposals by the President, such as “end[ing] a provision in the tax code that shields hundreds of billions (!) of dollars in appreciated wealth passed on to heirs” all sorts of nasty names. Like, ‘class warfare’ and ‘wealth distribution.’ Which is rich (as it were), considering the warfare waged (and won) against the poor and the middle class for far too long; and the massive redistribution of wealth into so very few hands in such a very short time.
This is the economic version of global warming – denied, ignored, and worsened by GOP policies. The current situation already is unsustainable. Failing to correct it may win the GOP more campaign contributions in the short term; ultimately, it will prove to be stupid, counterproductive and (I fear) tragic for us all.
Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner’s face told us what lies ahead.
26
Odd that he would draw such long-overdue distinctions now when his opposition is at its highest and the chances of success the lowest. A nod to his legacy without having to actually do something about anything? Why is this man generating so much cynicism in me?
7
At least half of our nation found Obama's speech meaningless and his proposals bad for the people. As usual he delivered a well polished performance, like the best in Hollywood, but the script was just dull campaign material.
NYT praises his speech and proposals, and commenters deride those who dare to disagree. Yet, what good will such editorials do? Will they change the mind of anyone? Can you imagine any libertarian, conservative, Republican, or Tea Party person change his mind because of what NYT writes? But more importantly, does NYT really believe that by praising Obama they will change the mind of independents, those who don't vote for one party only?
Regardless of what is written here, the speech will be forgotten and the politicians will continue making the best deals they can.
NYT praises his speech and proposals, and commenters deride those who dare to disagree. Yet, what good will such editorials do? Will they change the mind of anyone? Can you imagine any libertarian, conservative, Republican, or Tea Party person change his mind because of what NYT writes? But more importantly, does NYT really believe that by praising Obama they will change the mind of independents, those who don't vote for one party only?
Regardless of what is written here, the speech will be forgotten and the politicians will continue making the best deals they can.
9
And, the alternative is...?
5
You don't know what "half our nation" thinks about anything and all you represent is a losing, anti-democratic point-of-view.
3
"Defiant"? "Combative"? Hardly. Focusing on the needs of the nation and accurately placing responsibility on those who refuse to help most Americans? Yes!
45
KP: what makes you think he was focusing on the needs of the nation? After all, the nation told us in the last election that they want to oppose most of Obama's agenda. All he did is repeat it. That sounds like combative to me.
2
Rim Man,
Nice try. The American populace did not tell Obama to go away. Only about 33% of the populace voted. Yes, shame on Americans for that. But please don't cherry pick your FOXNews answers to try and
prove some point here. Nobody's buying it.
Nice try. The American populace did not tell Obama to go away. Only about 33% of the populace voted. Yes, shame on Americans for that. But please don't cherry pick your FOXNews answers to try and
prove some point here. Nobody's buying it.
2
Combative yes, willing to work with others, NO...but that is our KING...it's his way or the high way, and then he blames everyone else...
Thats what we get when a "community organizer" is elected to run our country...he just can't figure out how to work with others !
Thats what we get when a "community organizer" is elected to run our country...he just can't figure out how to work with others !
1
The GOPs adherence to their bogus trickle down theory has led the US to the extreme wealth inequality we have today, as well as the our deteriorating infrastructure. Since its beginning during the Reagan years, you can see the damage this trickle down policy has done to the middle class over the last 30 years.
8
These speeches are relics from another century. I think Jefferson had it right when he sent a letter.
1
Unawares to the antiquated GOP, President Obama knows where
average folks of twenty -first century America are in their political
hearts: they need and like government services and are willing to be
reasonably taxed to know there is reward and security for them in
the bargain.
And that purists' states' rights thing, is that ever outdated and inefficient!
Obama will be deemed not only a historic leader but a very successful
one.
average folks of twenty -first century America are in their political
hearts: they need and like government services and are willing to be
reasonably taxed to know there is reward and security for them in
the bargain.
And that purists' states' rights thing, is that ever outdated and inefficient!
Obama will be deemed not only a historic leader but a very successful
one.
12
I watched the speech and "combative" is not a word that fits.
The only statement that even came close was in response to Republican cheering when he said that he had run his last campaign. And, in response, he only said that he had won his two elections. So, who was being obnoxious there?
After six years, the President knows the Republicans in Congress are not going to work with him in any way. )Can you imagine what he must think when Mitch McConnell now has the chutzpah to say it is time for the President to reach across the aisle?) Knowing that he just focused his speech on what he plans to work on. He won't have any Republican support - from the 18% of eligible voters who won the election, but judging by the Pulse voting during his speech, 90% of listeners agreed with most of his points.
The only statement that even came close was in response to Republican cheering when he said that he had run his last campaign. And, in response, he only said that he had won his two elections. So, who was being obnoxious there?
After six years, the President knows the Republicans in Congress are not going to work with him in any way. )Can you imagine what he must think when Mitch McConnell now has the chutzpah to say it is time for the President to reach across the aisle?) Knowing that he just focused his speech on what he plans to work on. He won't have any Republican support - from the 18% of eligible voters who won the election, but judging by the Pulse voting during his speech, 90% of listeners agreed with most of his points.
14
Name one substantive piece of legislation where this President reached across the isle and worked in a bipartisan fashion, just one. The fact of the matter is that while possessing a unique, historic opportunity to unite this Country, his has been the most divisive administration, intentionally--class warfare, race relations, you name it. President Obama was unqualified to serve as President based on his work and life history and his inept administration and liberal/socialist economic bias has influenced all decision making, even when clearly not factually based or effective. In six years, he hasn't learned much, it seems to me.
27
"Name one substantive piece of legislation where this President reached across the isle and worked in a bipartisan fashion, just one."....It takes two to tango, and when Dixiecrats run the Republican party, a president born in Kenya won't show up on their dance card.
3
"Name one substantive piece of legislation where this President reached across the isle and worked in a bipartisan fashion..."
Robert he tried over and over and over to do so. A prime example, you ask?
January, 2010: Obama holds a meeting with Republicans in Baltimore, where he allows for a candid question-and-answer session in order to hear directly from the opposition and allow them to express their skepticism. A month later, he speaks with Republicans in what will be dubbed the “Healthcare Summit.” Obama compromised his initial plan for a single-payer system, instead seeking a Republican-promoted individual mandate mirroring the one Mitt Romney created as Governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s.
Robert he tried over and over and over to do so. A prime example, you ask?
January, 2010: Obama holds a meeting with Republicans in Baltimore, where he allows for a candid question-and-answer session in order to hear directly from the opposition and allow them to express their skepticism. A month later, he speaks with Republicans in what will be dubbed the “Healthcare Summit.” Obama compromised his initial plan for a single-payer system, instead seeking a Republican-promoted individual mandate mirroring the one Mitt Romney created as Governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s.
10
Did anyone notice the soured-faced Boehner didn't applaud or stand on the President's proposal to grant women equal pay for equal work? And the GOP wonders why it doesn't have more astute women in its electorate and leadership.
18
Because what Obama and the Democrats are proposing is not necessary and just a gift to their trial lawyer donor base. Per WSJ:
The U.S. already has two broad federal laws—the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1963 Equal Pay Act—that prohibit gender-based pay discrimination. In case that wasn't enough, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act in 2009 that as recently as March Mr. Obama said "ensures equal pay for equal work." What changed in the last three months?
To the extent there remains a male-female wage gap, it is mostly a function of occupational and lifestyle choices. Women have tended to gravitate to professions (teachers, secretaries) that are often not as highly paid as male-dominated industries. Many also decide to leave the workforce at some point, or to work part-time, to raise children. The "pay gap" is the result of free choices in what remains of our free economy.
The bill ought to be called the "Trial Lawyer Paycheck Act," since it is a recipe for a class-action boom. The law automatically lists women as plaintiffs in class actions when lawyers sue employers, thereby requiring female employees to opt-out of litigation with which they don't agree. Businesses would be treated as guilty until shown to be innocent, having to prove in court that their pay practices aren't the result of workplace bias. The legislation contains no caps on damage awards, allowing plaintiffs to claim unlimited punitive damages even in cases of unintentional discrimination.
The U.S. already has two broad federal laws—the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1963 Equal Pay Act—that prohibit gender-based pay discrimination. In case that wasn't enough, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act in 2009 that as recently as March Mr. Obama said "ensures equal pay for equal work." What changed in the last three months?
To the extent there remains a male-female wage gap, it is mostly a function of occupational and lifestyle choices. Women have tended to gravitate to professions (teachers, secretaries) that are often not as highly paid as male-dominated industries. Many also decide to leave the workforce at some point, or to work part-time, to raise children. The "pay gap" is the result of free choices in what remains of our free economy.
The bill ought to be called the "Trial Lawyer Paycheck Act," since it is a recipe for a class-action boom. The law automatically lists women as plaintiffs in class actions when lawyers sue employers, thereby requiring female employees to opt-out of litigation with which they don't agree. Businesses would be treated as guilty until shown to be innocent, having to prove in court that their pay practices aren't the result of workplace bias. The legislation contains no caps on damage awards, allowing plaintiffs to claim unlimited punitive damages even in cases of unintentional discrimination.
1
We have seen "The Party of No" in action over the last 6 years, and have no reason to expect this will change. The republicans are heavily backed by special interests, wealthy individuals, and rich corporations. You can follow the money to determine what the GOP will do, and we know what that is further enrich the fat cats. Inequality improvements? Forgetaboutit! As long as the republicans continue to effectively use the unlimited funds they receive to deceive the ignorant, we will continue to be stuck in the mud.
11
rantall: Republicans said no to the liberal agenda which found toxic for the nation. Now we see they were correct, but Obama refuses to admit it. And now he will be President "No" when he vetoes many bills. After all, the Republicans will be passing bills on many ideas they campaigned on and the country said yes to them.
1
Several here complain that President Obama did not take this stance when he entered office with a Democratic Congress. True, he can be criticized for some timidity, and the Democrats should have been more disciplined in seeing that their success (and, more importantly, the nation's) was bound up with the president's. That said, we quickly forget the dire state of the country when he took office. We were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan; employment, tax revenues, and the stock market were plummeting and whole industries were being bailed out; existing safety net programs for unemployment and food stamps were strained. Now, the president stands with a record of success, and citizens increasingly have the security to free themselves from their fears. The president can still do a lot to push his agenda with the public, influence debates at the state levels, produce and exploit fissures in the Republican congress, and turn the country towards a more progressive path in the years ahead. All we have to do is review the swings in the electorate over the last decade of election cycles to see that the current dominance of the Republicans could evaporate as quickly as it came. I only criticize the president for his emphasis on middle class tax relief -- the Republicans are likely to add that to their own tax plans for lower taxes for the top, digging us all into a hole. A specific tax, weighted towards the top or on carbon, for infrastructure would be a better rallying cry.
5
A great editorial. And a perfect photo of the president.
4
As usual, Congressional Republicans confuse rude childish public outbursts and foot-stomping with "being a man."
4
Maybe someone will have the audacity to remind us that income "re-distribution" remains a plank in the Republicaniker's Platform... the only difference lies in the direction of the "re-distribution". How much of the world's wealth held by the 1% is too much? Today it reached 50%, un-checked, it will reach 60% soon... Pray tell us "how much is too much?"
3
I'm looking for some adults on both sides of the room. Not folks who agree or "go along" with anything that comes out of President Obama's mouth; rather individuals who have the forethought and intelligence to seriously consider the idea before them and to offer an option grounded in reason and some sort of factual basis for hypotheses and conclusions. At that point we enter into the realm of ideas delivered with a civility that suggests the merits of both lines of thought. Is that so entirely horrible? What about a reasonable debate? I have been reading the New York Times most every day for the past decade. At what point to we get to have adults representing us in Congress?
1
The speech's policy proposals were on the mark--practical, progressive, and many already in place and working well in other advanced countries. The speech itself was a little limp. It had a great structure--comparing the last 15 years to the promise of the next 15 years, but needed a ringing tag-phrase and more consistent reference to the future. Instead it wandered a bit and lacked punch. What will be remembered most is the ad-libbed "I won two times" as he glanced over to the Republican side of the chamber (what was he responding to?). The Republican response, on the other hand, was a hoot. At one point, it looked as if Rep. Ernst was looking around for Sen. Rubio's bottled water. At least it had a memorable moment--the bit about a busload of kids wearing bread loaf bags over their shoes.
1
Why not propose a tax on financial transactions over a million bucks? Why not call for a repeal of the recent legislation literally written, in part, by Citibank?
One of the key lessons from Mr. Obama's presidency is that you can be in the pocket of Wall Street banksters, but if you're a Democrat, most of the media, and electorate, will not notice.
One of the key lessons from Mr. Obama's presidency is that you can be in the pocket of Wall Street banksters, but if you're a Democrat, most of the media, and electorate, will not notice.
7
"Middle class economics" is an accurate phrase: the policies the president set forth would benefit the middle class more than other segments of the population. Many existing policies, laws and rules also help the middle class.
But it is also an unfortunate phrase, because it reflects the short shrift both parties give to our poor at all levels of government. Examples are the vile state lotteries that prey on them; excise taxes; and programs and policies that are out of their reach but indirectly increase their tax burden like 401k's, educational 529s; and the asinine 30-year, 3.8% mortgage.
Some of the programs the president proposed will indeed help the poor if enacted (fat chance). They include community college tuition, child care credits, and paid sick leave. He should be commended for including them in his message. But he should propose more and give "middle class economics" a new label. How about "ordinary people economics?"
But it is also an unfortunate phrase, because it reflects the short shrift both parties give to our poor at all levels of government. Examples are the vile state lotteries that prey on them; excise taxes; and programs and policies that are out of their reach but indirectly increase their tax burden like 401k's, educational 529s; and the asinine 30-year, 3.8% mortgage.
Some of the programs the president proposed will indeed help the poor if enacted (fat chance). They include community college tuition, child care credits, and paid sick leave. He should be commended for including them in his message. But he should propose more and give "middle class economics" a new label. How about "ordinary people economics?"
2
The scope of President Obama's achievements in office have been limited by recalcitrant Republicans intent upon denying him any and all opportunities for success, in any matter however great or small. It is to his great credit that the President remains unbowed. He continues to pursue an agenda on behalf of the American people which is sensible, thoughtful, and compassionate, despite the forces arrayed against him. And he does so with grace, wit, intelligence, and good humor. History will rank him as one of America's greatest presidents.
9
"...but trade-offs amounting to Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable."
That pretty much says it all, doesn't it. Regardless of whether the legislation is good for the country or not we can't allow Republicans any "victories". Sad really.
That pretty much says it all, doesn't it. Regardless of whether the legislation is good for the country or not we can't allow Republicans any "victories". Sad really.
The Republicans, for years, haven't proposed anything except the abolition of the ACA. Did you have an actual point?
3
OK, so what was with all the kissing of the women lawmakers? I didn't see any of the men getting kissed.
4
Please get a grip, in almost the entire western world (except the US) men and women exchange a kiss on the cheek (not even really a kiss, just cheeks pressed together and this a kiss sound) when greeting.
1
Most of us agree that wages for the average worker have to increase if we are going to have a sound economy.Even Mitt Romney agrees to that,but what can the Government do about.It can not compel companies to increase employees wages.That was the role of unions but we all know what happened to that.
There are three things that Government can do. First is to increase the minimum wage to a living wage The other is to fund jobs programs and demand contractors pay a set rate.and last is what the President proposed:Increase taxes on those that park their money on empty multimillion dollar apartments in Manhattan and other places and help the poor and middle class have a fair shot at the American dream.
I call this fairness,not a transfer of wealth
There are three things that Government can do. First is to increase the minimum wage to a living wage The other is to fund jobs programs and demand contractors pay a set rate.and last is what the President proposed:Increase taxes on those that park their money on empty multimillion dollar apartments in Manhattan and other places and help the poor and middle class have a fair shot at the American dream.
I call this fairness,not a transfer of wealth
8
While I agree with most of what President Obama had to say, I have begun to question the authenticity of his drive. Talking of lifting the middle class with lofty schemes while on the other hand undercutting the middle to lower by encouraging illegal immigration, how does that work?
Tax the big boys...agree. But it is under Obama that corporate entities have made record profits. Why didn't the President do something when the congress was democratic. Yes, the Republicans are selling out the middle and lower classes, but so are the Democrats. Sad.
Tax the big boys...agree. But it is under Obama that corporate entities have made record profits. Why didn't the President do something when the congress was democratic. Yes, the Republicans are selling out the middle and lower classes, but so are the Democrats. Sad.
3
Just one question, how is Obama encouraging illegal immigration? He has sent more aliens back to their home than any other president.
3
It is always amusing and a little disturbing to me reading comments that only a a trickle-down economy does work to lift those at the bottom of the income ladder up.They argue against higher taxes on the ueber rich - the so-called job creators -and corporations that sometimes pay zero tax or hide their assets in safe havens.
Our family, while not having belonged to the illustrious club of 0.1% but very high up the ladder, received a nice little gift curtesy of W., a gift we didn't need at all.With children out of the house, tuitions paid in full, and a household of only two adults, a dog and a cat, we didn't change our spending habits one iota, thus not creating one job by putting that Bush gift back into circulation.
What is so hard to understand that those that live from paycheck to paycheck put almost all of their money back into the economy?
Raising the disgustingly low minimum wage, - a wage that is too low to put food on the table and cloth for a family of four, a wage that is too low that it takes at least two breadwinners to make ends meet while at the same time having to pay for child care -, will make this country's economy much more stable for everyone involved.
According to the OECD, income inequality of all advanced nations is the highest in the still richest country on the planet, the US. But then, these countries have multitudes of solid safety nets for the less off, laws that are decried here as being socialism pure.
Our family, while not having belonged to the illustrious club of 0.1% but very high up the ladder, received a nice little gift curtesy of W., a gift we didn't need at all.With children out of the house, tuitions paid in full, and a household of only two adults, a dog and a cat, we didn't change our spending habits one iota, thus not creating one job by putting that Bush gift back into circulation.
What is so hard to understand that those that live from paycheck to paycheck put almost all of their money back into the economy?
Raising the disgustingly low minimum wage, - a wage that is too low to put food on the table and cloth for a family of four, a wage that is too low that it takes at least two breadwinners to make ends meet while at the same time having to pay for child care -, will make this country's economy much more stable for everyone involved.
According to the OECD, income inequality of all advanced nations is the highest in the still richest country on the planet, the US. But then, these countries have multitudes of solid safety nets for the less off, laws that are decried here as being socialism pure.
17
It was in some ways a throwaway moment, but revealing upon reflection. The President said he had run his last campaign. Rude, disrespectful, sarcastic applause erupted from the children on the Republican side of the aisle. The old Obama would have stood stock still and smiled humbly.
This Obama, one I like a lot, shoots back: "Yeah, and I won both of them." The applause stopped immediately; it had to. Dems took over.
I want to see more of this response to the immature members of congress who think their job is to destroy the government they were elected to strengthen.
I'm still applauding.
This Obama, one I like a lot, shoots back: "Yeah, and I won both of them." The applause stopped immediately; it had to. Dems took over.
I want to see more of this response to the immature members of congress who think their job is to destroy the government they were elected to strengthen.
I'm still applauding.
14
We can only hope that the speech was the beginning of the Democrats' effort to play the political game according to the rules the Republicans have defined as the current standard. Republicans have aggressively and relentlessly attacked Obama as a "socialist liberal" and obstructed everything he tried to do. It's time for Obama and Democrats to counterattack, portraying Republicans as caring only about wealthy and corporate persons while encouraging the decline of the middle class and promoting income inequality. Such attacks would at least be grounded in truth and reality, unlike most right-wing attack propaganda.
11
"a President Outgunned in Congress Is Still Combative"
I would describe him as frustrated and truculent. Obama is more of a Don Quixote than an effective leader.
I would describe him as frustrated and truculent. Obama is more of a Don Quixote than an effective leader.
3
Many comments have been written about the need for compromise. Many comments have stated that President Obama refuses to compromise. The President has laid his plans out time and time again and the plans have been very specific. The GOP, on the other hand, has not laid out counter proposals that could provide the basis for compromise. "Dead on arrival" is the mantra of the GOP. Senator Paul it seems is the only member of the GOP that seems willing to lay out his plans. Though his proposals may not go anywhere, perhaps, they could provide the basis for negotiations. It is going to be a long two years.
5
One could say that in the State of the Union address, Barack Obama has turned the page on the mess he inherited and has cleaned up from the George W. Bush administration.
But it's beyond me how well he has done it without any Republican help.
Those voters who think otherwise should watch the promised assault the Republicans will unleash on the policies the President has achieved to make our lives better. And then ask themselves under whose party are they better off.
But it's beyond me how well he has done it without any Republican help.
Those voters who think otherwise should watch the promised assault the Republicans will unleash on the policies the President has achieved to make our lives better. And then ask themselves under whose party are they better off.
13
I couldn't help but think as I listened to Ernst speak that she is a Roosevelt Democrat. I wonder how it is that the Republican message can be all things to all people. The populism and the simple understanding of an America that provides the opportunity for all seems completely at odds with the message of Bush, Romney, and Cruz of a chosen elite.
I can't help but remember the words of Canadian poet Irving Layton, "What power ignorance, that make your possessors seem so strong."
I can't help but remember the words of Canadian poet Irving Layton, "What power ignorance, that make your possessors seem so strong."
3
I heard lots of the State of Obama, and not much State of the Union.
2
And yet, Ken, if you'd been looking at the response to his speech, as shown on the bar graph at the bottom of the screen, you'd have seen that 90%of the people listening agreed with what the President said.
Of course, if you did not listen, or filtered it with Fox Propaganda's remarks, your comment is apt.
Of course, if you did not listen, or filtered it with Fox Propaganda's remarks, your comment is apt.
3
Perhaps Obama's greatest flaw is that he has been a gentleman, a man who tried to lead by consensus and compromise, rather than a politician who could trade below-the-belt punches in the muck and mire of the Congressional Trenches.
Finally, he seems to have realized that approach will not work. At last he seems ready to draw his sword - the power of the veto - and fight for what he believes in rather than see it watered down at best, and often killed in the Congressional Trenches.
It may be too late, but I sure am glad to see him stepping out of the corner with both fists flying.
Finally, he seems to have realized that approach will not work. At last he seems ready to draw his sword - the power of the veto - and fight for what he believes in rather than see it watered down at best, and often killed in the Congressional Trenches.
It may be too late, but I sure am glad to see him stepping out of the corner with both fists flying.
214
"Perhaps Obama's greatest flaw is that he has been a gentleman...."
President Obama's greatest flaw is that he's a coward.
President Obama's greatest flaw is that he's a coward.
He may be a gentleman in public, but he in negotiations he was anything but. If we wanted to lead by consensus, meeting Republicans maybe 10-20% of the way on Obamacare would have been a good start. He would have garnered at least a few votes from the other side. Some give on tort reform, vouchers, contraceptives would have would have good grace although at the expense of the left side of his base. He chose however to step on the Republicans' throats and thrill his base. He stated publicly that he won the election and we were going to do things his way. That is not consensus.
He poisoned the well from the start and once lost any hope of compromise after the fact.
He poisoned the well from the start and once lost any hope of compromise after the fact.
I thought it was a fine speech in content and in delivery. There was some genuine substance in the President's proposals and some boiler plate 'pie in the sky" stuff. But, that's ok...that's politics.
I don't agree with the NYT's editorial board that the President was "combative". To me, he sounded confident and composed, not cocky and combative.
As for compromise, I believe that he should remain willing to compromise ...up to a point. Compromise is a foundation of our system. If he were unwilling to compromise, he would become as bad as his opponents. However, he should never expect compromise. It wasn't that long ago that the leaders of the GOP vowed that their objective was to "destroy" the Obama presidency. I'm still stunned by those comments, but they removed any pretense of why many members of the GOP Congress ran for election in the first place.
So, Mr. President, continue to push for your programs. meet often with republican leaders, try to persuade, try to be reasonable, veto when it's necessary (don't threaten, just do it), hope for the best and expect the worst.
Oh, and smile. One image I'm left with is that of the President frequently smiling last night while the Speaker sat there, sullen and glowering.
I don't agree with the NYT's editorial board that the President was "combative". To me, he sounded confident and composed, not cocky and combative.
As for compromise, I believe that he should remain willing to compromise ...up to a point. Compromise is a foundation of our system. If he were unwilling to compromise, he would become as bad as his opponents. However, he should never expect compromise. It wasn't that long ago that the leaders of the GOP vowed that their objective was to "destroy" the Obama presidency. I'm still stunned by those comments, but they removed any pretense of why many members of the GOP Congress ran for election in the first place.
So, Mr. President, continue to push for your programs. meet often with republican leaders, try to persuade, try to be reasonable, veto when it's necessary (don't threaten, just do it), hope for the best and expect the worst.
Oh, and smile. One image I'm left with is that of the President frequently smiling last night while the Speaker sat there, sullen and glowering.
29
"Gridlock seems almost foreordained over the next two years. Mr. Obama should do nothing to confuse the voters as to where the responsibility lies." The responsibility lies with Congress and the President. He is not imperial. When he takes every chance possible to poke a finger in the eyes of Republicans, he shows his true colors and his unwillingness to listen to the mid-term voters who made their rightful choices in democratic elections. His arrogance is his undoing.
2
A little paranoid.
Its surprising that a President who have achieved so much against is being gridlocked at every point.
1
Where has he been the last 6 years?
4
Fixing the trashed economy, taking care of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, reducing the budget deficit, and repairing the healthcare system.
4
Oh, you mean doing his job? What a novel idea...to members of the GOP.
2
"Mr Obama should do nothing to confuse voters as to where responsibility lies." There is no confusion. This is a President who has failed to LEAD. He has done nothing to build constructive alliances across the aisles. He does not understand what consensus is. I am deeply disappointed in this President. I voted for him with the hope that he would change the game in Washington and he has turned out to the most polarizing figure ever in Washington. Deeply disappointed.
4
"Tonight, the president told the American voters not only does he not hear their message but intends to do precisely the opposite." Senator Ted Cruz
Apparently a pathetic 36% voter turnout constitutes some kind of "mandate" while the 64% who didn't bother to vote must represent some kind of "counter mandate" implying that things are going so swell, they didn't even bother to vote.
I realize the "counter mandate" idea is absurd but no more absurd than crowing about the lowest voter turn out in years.
But the GOP/TP has both Houses and a money/donation/ALEC/Koch Brothers driven agenda that brooks no sort of compromise. Raise taxes on the wealthy? The proverbial "snowball in hell" has a much better chance (Beyond the SCOTUS approved bribery, remember that 1/2 of the people in Congress are millionaires and certainly won't become "traitors to their class" or "traitors to their cash").
So, sit back, fire up the wood stove and watch the "antics" we call "governing" unfold. It's a great time to be in the 1% and, now, if they can just settle on who to back for president, and win the office, we can then return to the halcyon days of 1860, minus the "slavery", maybe.
Apparently a pathetic 36% voter turnout constitutes some kind of "mandate" while the 64% who didn't bother to vote must represent some kind of "counter mandate" implying that things are going so swell, they didn't even bother to vote.
I realize the "counter mandate" idea is absurd but no more absurd than crowing about the lowest voter turn out in years.
But the GOP/TP has both Houses and a money/donation/ALEC/Koch Brothers driven agenda that brooks no sort of compromise. Raise taxes on the wealthy? The proverbial "snowball in hell" has a much better chance (Beyond the SCOTUS approved bribery, remember that 1/2 of the people in Congress are millionaires and certainly won't become "traitors to their class" or "traitors to their cash").
So, sit back, fire up the wood stove and watch the "antics" we call "governing" unfold. It's a great time to be in the 1% and, now, if they can just settle on who to back for president, and win the office, we can then return to the halcyon days of 1860, minus the "slavery", maybe.
4
Reagan era tax rates were horrible for the middle class. Those rates, and the declining wages due to globalization, are what killed what little middle class prosperity we had achieved for the 30 years prior to Reagan.
If going back to Reagan era economics is seen as a victory, that just shows how far to the right our nation has moved and how harmful that has been for everyone except the super rich.
If going back to Reagan era economics is seen as a victory, that just shows how far to the right our nation has moved and how harmful that has been for everyone except the super rich.
5
"Income inequality, " which appears at least once in this editorial and widely elsewhere, is an unfortunate turn of phrase in this sense. The solution to this problem would have to be "income equality," which no one is suggesting and which is too easily attacked from the right as smacking of communism. As an alternative, I suggest "income imbalance. " It more accurately describes the situation and the solution. Perhaps if the Times were to begin using this phrase instead of the other, it might gradually catch on and alter the nature and quality of the debate.
6
Excellent speech. (Incredibly rude, ill-placed, and undignified move when some in the room clapped when Obama mentioned he won't be running again. (and of course, he can't.) )
Speaking of clapping .....What jumped out at me the most was Boehner to stage left. His clapping and/or standing gave a very clear verdict on what he did and didn't agree with.
He likes the NASA mission to Mars ! (stood and clapped). He likes Vets ! (ditto). He sorta likes building infrastructure (a sitting clap.)
He most certainly does NOT like equal pay for equal work for women. Not even a clap! Let alone a stand !
One could deduce that he literally does applaud or not stand up for women.
What woman in her right mind can vote for these guys ?
Speaking of clapping .....What jumped out at me the most was Boehner to stage left. His clapping and/or standing gave a very clear verdict on what he did and didn't agree with.
He likes the NASA mission to Mars ! (stood and clapped). He likes Vets ! (ditto). He sorta likes building infrastructure (a sitting clap.)
He most certainly does NOT like equal pay for equal work for women. Not even a clap! Let alone a stand !
One could deduce that he literally does applaud or not stand up for women.
What woman in her right mind can vote for these guys ?
15
Or it could mean that he doesn't like the president to use the issue to score cheap political points, since study after study after study shows that women already get equal pay for equal work.
Not sure what "study after study" you refer to. Maybe the same ones the say humans have no effect on climate. I prefer to stick with facts.
2
It's pretty jarring to me that the Presidemt and so many others feel entitled to redistribute my income to others. It's almost as if I didn't get a top education and work hard to actually earn it! Having earned every penny, I will make sure that each of those pennies makes it to my children, which is my right. If folks want to do well, then let them go out and earn it too and leave me alone.
7
Even if this kind of behavior tanks the economy? You sound like the European aristocrats we fought the Revolutionary War against. And if wealth continues to concentrate, and the middle class continues to hollow out, we won't have much of an economy . . . . unless you think places like Equatorial Guinea or Nigeria or Paraguay represent good examples for the United States to follow.
10
"Having earned every penny,"....So how about using some of the money you earned to help rebuild the nations infrastructure? A better infrastructure will improve the quality of life for everyone, including your children.
5
Each working American earns every penny, so get over patting yourself on the back for working. The problem now is that there are so few "working" Americans. There could be more if infrastructure programs are funded; health care funded; educational programs funded. So, where did you do all this lone survivor stuff? What planet were you on where you could succeed all on your own?
3
While watching the end of his speech, the "agree" with him poll numbers showed that 91% of Democratics agreed with him..... and 83% of Republicans. It's time the Republican electorate ask themselves just whom their party represents.
10
The president's broad claim of economic recovery proves conclusively that Republicans followed the proper course in the past four years. They blocked virtually everything he proposed, and the economy was able to recover because of it. We should all celebrate the success of Republican obstructionism, and endorse their continuation of that strategy for the next two years.
2
Celebrate and endorse obstructionism? God help America.
4
The economy was able to recover in spite of Republican obstructionism not because of it. The recovery would have come faster, been more robust and been more equitable if the Republicans has been less interested in making President Obama a one term President and more interested in doing their jobs.
5
The recovery has occurred due to a mediocre stimulus, cheap money due to Federal Reserve policy, a lack of inflation and the Affordable Care Act. It was slowed by laying off government workers and austerity. The GOP was against all that helped and for all that didn't help.
3
Outgunned? That's an unfortunate choice of words. As he showed last night, this President of the United states cannot be "outgunned" because his heart is always in the right place, which is to do the right thing for the American people, who will respond by providing him with all the "guns" that he'll need to fight the Republicans during his last two years in office...
14
"Outgunned?".....The President's approval rating stands at 46%. The approval rating for Congress is less than half that number. Who is out gunned?
1
Mr. Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent like under Reagan. But he fails to mention that Reagan cut the income tax rate to 28 percent at the same time. It is now over 39 percent. Slight difference....
3
Except Reagan's tax cuts for the rich tripled the debt.
And the Reagan RAISED taxes when he saw the huge deficits his tax cuts caused.
And the Reagan RAISED taxes when he saw the huge deficits his tax cuts caused.
12
"There is one other thing he must do: Resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise. Give-and-take is part of the legislative process, but trade-offs amounting to Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable."
This is my fear, that Obama will now seek to compromise with the same people who refused to budge for the last 6 years. He already lost me with the last spending bill. I'm not sanguine about the next 2 years.
This is my fear, that Obama will now seek to compromise with the same people who refused to budge for the last 6 years. He already lost me with the last spending bill. I'm not sanguine about the next 2 years.
6
President Obama should have proposed these tax measures when he first became president instead of pursuing a "grand bargain".
Taxing all dividends and capital gains as ordinary income would raise
160 B /year .
Taxing carried interest as ordinary income would raise about 10 B /year.
Taxing unrealized capital gains at death [instead of giving heirs a step up in basis] would raise about 43 B /year.
Total of all these is over 200 B /year.
There is no need for a "grand bargain" where Social Security and Medicare are cut to pay for a debt neither program caused.
While the rich would pay more because they have much more of their income from non-wage sources than the average person, this is not soaking the rich but just restoring some fairness to the tax code.
The top .1% receive half the capital gain income.
The GOP will oppose any of these measures because they are controlled by the 1% who do not want to pay higher taxes.
But elections are won or lost by all the voters.
In 2014 the Dems lost the 50K-100K income voters.
The Dems must make it clear how these tax proposals would help these and other voters in the 99%.
I hope President Obama's speech was a step in that direction.
Taxing all dividends and capital gains as ordinary income would raise
160 B /year .
Taxing carried interest as ordinary income would raise about 10 B /year.
Taxing unrealized capital gains at death [instead of giving heirs a step up in basis] would raise about 43 B /year.
Total of all these is over 200 B /year.
There is no need for a "grand bargain" where Social Security and Medicare are cut to pay for a debt neither program caused.
While the rich would pay more because they have much more of their income from non-wage sources than the average person, this is not soaking the rich but just restoring some fairness to the tax code.
The top .1% receive half the capital gain income.
The GOP will oppose any of these measures because they are controlled by the 1% who do not want to pay higher taxes.
But elections are won or lost by all the voters.
In 2014 the Dems lost the 50K-100K income voters.
The Dems must make it clear how these tax proposals would help these and other voters in the 99%.
I hope President Obama's speech was a step in that direction.
12
Of course he worked with Congress on healthcare and financial services reform; at the time they were all Democrats who pushed through legislation in a haste. And both laws need serious modifications (I'm in the financial industry so I have the insider's view on this one).
He also didn't mention the glaring wealth disparity, one of the largest ever and a big point vocalized by the Republicans. It would have been nice if he stated how his proposals would help.
He also didn't mention the glaring wealth disparity, one of the largest ever and a big point vocalized by the Republicans. It would have been nice if he stated how his proposals would help.
2
The President was quite correct to begin his speech by citing what has been accomplished. Does anyone remember what the fall of 2008 was like? McCain was calling for a suspension of campaigning to address the fiscal crisis. We have gone from LOSING 700 thousands jobs per month to gaining 250,000. The stagnant wages would have been fixed by a minimum wage increase that the President requested and one party did everything to stop. That party clings to the ground breaking strategy of doing nothing and promising lowering taxes. That mindset has resulted in the worst infrastructure throughout the country in more than 50 years. We would all say we're in favor of small government. We say that until we want a strong defense, a response to a national disaster or an improved transportation system, energy program or investment in a jobs creating program in our own country. It is easy to label a part as tax and spend but those programs have made significant differences in people's lives. Ask the people who receive social security or medicare benefits where they would be without them. I know at least 20 people who are very happy with their health insurance and who are covered for the first time. Are these perfect programs? No, but why can't our illustrious leaders do exactly what the President called upon them to do? They can argue but, in the end, they can find points that they agree on and move this country forward.
57
I would have taken him more seriously had he proposed the same things when the Democrats were in charge of Congress, and there was actually a chance that any of those proposals became law.
11
He did, over and over again. You weren't listening.
9
The editorial documents the enormous accomplishments that Mr. Obama was able to do with the Democratic majorities. At that time the economic crisis would not allow the kind of initiatives he is proposing now. His proposals are sane and sober, the GOP agenda is that the rich should have it all.
5
I think he accomplished a terriffic amount in spite of everything and everyone against him. If he was President another 2 terms I would be happy.
4
Obama should just enact his entire agenda on the grounds of prosecutorial discretion. Minimum wage, middle class tax credits, education initiatives, and so on -- just pass them all on the grounds that he is thereby avoiding having to prosecute the Republicans for their crimes of the past.
3
Your understanding of prosecutorial discretion is about equal to the president's.
what in the world does prosecutorial discretion have to do with any of this? It is a term used in criminal law. And how is he going to pass any laws on his own?
1
Our president speaks a lot about mid class, our education and economy improvement.
I am not going to express the views of the majority, but it is too late. Too late for him, soon late for us.
I don't believe his speeches. Practically nothing has changed аfor the better for last 6 years.
I am not going to express the views of the majority, but it is too late. Too late for him, soon late for us.
I don't believe his speeches. Practically nothing has changed аfor the better for last 6 years.
7
"Nothing" that is except an economy that went from a terrifying free-fall to stable and growing. Sheesh. Or the fact that the number of uninsured has plummeted. Or saving the automobile industry. Or the fact that we are not fighting two wars any more. Or a record stock market. Or incredibly low gas prices. Or gay people allowed to serve openly in our military. Or a rebounding housing market. Yes, except for these little, tiny things practically nothing has improved at all!
5
He could have done all these things in his first term, when the Democrats controlled Congress. Too bad he was so fixated on his "legacy" - Obamacare.
4
What a down-beat editorial after such an upbeat speech! President Obama was relaxed, open, introspective, and future-oriented, BUT, he was not combative. He eloquently and passionately defended his philosophy of governance and his vision of a truly united states that can rise above its petty political differences to do great things. It's disheartening to see the Republican-controlled Congress still stuck in "N" as in "NO." I share the President's optimism that after the all the "red meat" is thrown to their base that new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, will step forward and show that he's the "adult in the room." And there, I do share your concern that Mr. Obama will be so eager negotiate that he will, as before, succumb to the "false promise of compromise."
19
"Gridlock" is a failure of Presidential leadership.
The promise of compromise is not "false" but rather the only way the Federal government functions.
The divisiveness of President Obama has been historic.
The promise of compromise is not "false" but rather the only way the Federal government functions.
The divisiveness of President Obama has been historic.
9
I'll agree that the divisiveness of Republicans directed towards President Obama and the majority of the voters who voted for him twice has been historic.
5
What has the President done that can be considered divisive, other than the color of his skin?
5
How the GOP can be so wrong about just about everything never fails to amaze me. In contrast, Mr. Obama's positions seem like straightforward, common sense. I am immensely proud to have voted for Mr. Obama both times, and I continue to support him. I don't necessarily agree with everything he's done -- no president could be that perfect! -- but by and large, his perspective on and articulation of the major issues of the day align with my own. In the face of unbelievably bad odds, he's been a very good president. The Congress, on the other hand, has been a spectacularly bad Congress. Hope he keeps on speaking up, fighting for what he thinks is right for the country and the world, and using that veto pen as often as he feels he needs to. He rocked last night. I loved it.
111
Agree on his skills to articulate the issue, but he has got no skills to solve any problems. His policies of 6 years have made the issues that existed 6 years ago worse. But he is a master of twisting facts and convincing those who Gruber described very aptly in his lectures.
1
He has mad skills -- but you can't negotiate solutions with the party of "No." They made a pact the night before the inauguration to stop him in his tracks, and largely succeeded. His efforts to work with Boehner on compromise were rebuffed -- very disrespectfully, I might add. The Republicans have no new ideas, no solutions to the real problems plaguing this country. And no apparent interest in doing anything other than pandering to their corporate masters.
5
For anything substantive to happen, President Obama must abandon his treatment of Republicans with benign neglect. If he truly wants to sit down with Republican leaders and hammer out policies covering tax reform, trade, and military action, he cannot simply state that in his address; now is the time to act upon those words. The Republicans, now that they hold the cards, have everything to lose if they cannot demonstrate the ability to get through critical legislation and the President has everything to gain through amicable collaboration.
17
Obama has never sincerely wanted to work with Republicans. That's why he continues to troll them with the "I won the election" lines. His legacy is one of a troll that lost the House and the Senate. Sad for America, said for the office.
1
The Republicans have proven they don't care about passing anything that benefits anyone other than their ilk. There is so such thing as "amicable collaboration" with this Pressident. You're dreaming, or just astonishingly naive.
4
I would rather see him follow FDR and Truman, cross the country speaking about what needs to be done to improve the lives of all Americans. He needs to pin the Republican Congress to their lack of policies that would put jobs on the table, education on the table, health care on the table. If Boehner is the only one the Republicans have to send to the WH for talks, why do they bother? If I were a Republican, I would not be looking forward to another election.
1
President Obama was strong - not combative - and very relaxed. It was a joy to see him once again smile and add a little humor to the situation especially with John Boehner looking like he ate sour grapes all night. Thank you, President Obama, for continuing to work for 99% of us. Veto away.
188
Sour grapes for someone who leads the biggest majority in the house for 50 years? Looks like Boehner was genuinely concerned about the dictator, while Obama was acting like the sole extremist who did not care about anything.
This was a very good State of the Union speech. Mr. Obama stood up for the middle class and the principles of democracy in the face of a hostile opposition party. Just watching John Boehner's face throughout told volumes about how the GOP feels about helping the middle class or working with the Democrats to do anything but continue their hostile takeover of our country.
Many people have noted that the president's approval numbers have risen greatly in the months since the election. I suspect that's because the Kochs, Karl Rove, and their ilk have stopped throwing money against him like they did in the months leading up to the midterms. The American people are (unfortunately) easily swayed, but they do have short attention spans. Only ten weeks after the continual barrage of Republican attacks, Obama's numbers jumped back up. The midterms were won by Citizens United money, not the values of the GOP.
Many people have noted that the president's approval numbers have risen greatly in the months since the election. I suspect that's because the Kochs, Karl Rove, and their ilk have stopped throwing money against him like they did in the months leading up to the midterms. The American people are (unfortunately) easily swayed, but they do have short attention spans. Only ten weeks after the continual barrage of Republican attacks, Obama's numbers jumped back up. The midterms were won by Citizens United money, not the values of the GOP.
84
His numbers are up because he has taken action that his base and many in the center have been waiting for for years.
Obama's popularity is up mostly because he's seen as leading us against dangerous terrorists who have attacked in the West. Also, Putin's influence has declined. And our hostage policy has faded. I feel like foreign policy has taken a turn for the better. And that makes me feel better about my President. All your Rove and Koch stuff is irrelevant to me. I'm more interested in a President who has the upper hand in fighting the jihadists. Rove and Koch are ust silly old men.
1
The GOP has increasingly demonstrated over the last thirty-five years that it has no values.
5
Given that the GOP leaders have never been willing to compromise on anything, that they had wished from the very moment the President took office to make him a one-term President, I hold out no hope that compromise is possible.
"Further, while the rhetoric was combative, even defiant in parts, the president’s proposal is hardly radical. It would raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent — which is where it was in the Reagan era. It would impose ordinary income tax rates on dividends and end a provision in the tax code that shields hundreds of billions of dollars in appreciated wealth passed on to heirs. These changes, plus a new fee on big banks, would finance a set of tax breaks for middle-income families, including credits for two-earner couples, increased child care and college tuition credits, as well as other programs, including two years of tuition-free community college for some students."
I see nothing wrong with the above proposals. Tax increases for the rich to benefit the rest of us. It is unlikely to pass. Pity.
"Further, while the rhetoric was combative, even defiant in parts, the president’s proposal is hardly radical. It would raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent — which is where it was in the Reagan era. It would impose ordinary income tax rates on dividends and end a provision in the tax code that shields hundreds of billions of dollars in appreciated wealth passed on to heirs. These changes, plus a new fee on big banks, would finance a set of tax breaks for middle-income families, including credits for two-earner couples, increased child care and college tuition credits, as well as other programs, including two years of tuition-free community college for some students."
I see nothing wrong with the above proposals. Tax increases for the rich to benefit the rest of us. It is unlikely to pass. Pity.
47
And yet one of the Times' journalists seems to think the President should simply give up on his agenda and do what the other party wants, even if what the other party wants is harmful, as noticeable by their body language during the speech.
Peter Baker wrote:
"Despite his party’s losses in the recent elections, Mr. Obama laid out an expansive plan as if he were the one who had triumphed."
So, the "triumphant" Republicans should now set the agenda for the President?
The journalistic body of the Times disappoints, again
Peter Baker wrote:
"Despite his party’s losses in the recent elections, Mr. Obama laid out an expansive plan as if he were the one who had triumphed."
So, the "triumphant" Republicans should now set the agenda for the President?
The journalistic body of the Times disappoints, again
32
well, yes there are, in fact, consequences to winning and losing, at every level.
1
I can't remember the name of the politician who said elections have consequences and then shoved down the most messy liberal legislation down the throat of this country.
Guess, elections do not have consequences any more.
Guess, elections do not have consequences any more.
I agree, a very defeatist posture on the part of the editorial board. I question their reputation more and more. Or maybe I'm just getting old, and the youngsters are taking over. Woe is moi.
A great speech: well thought out and well delivered. The problem is not there. It is in the corruption that is at the heart of congressional district mapping: the juggling of boundary lines so that Republicans can keep getting elected by one segments of the population. The US congressional districting system is a corrupt as ones you will find in some African Asian and Latin American countries. We spend too much time talking about the purity of our politics. The reality is our system is prone to corruption. This Congress does not reflect the "will of the people".
113
Sorry. Staking out a clear position is easy. Anyone can do that.
The real work of leadership of a highly diverse democratic society is working with people who have legitimate, but different, needs and views to craft innovation for the future.
If you read or watch documentaries about what went on in the real Continental Congress, you see what true leaders do, and did.
Hammering the same old ineffective dogma from a precious pulpit is not effective leadership for a diverse culture.
The real work of leadership of a highly diverse democratic society is working with people who have legitimate, but different, needs and views to craft innovation for the future.
If you read or watch documentaries about what went on in the real Continental Congress, you see what true leaders do, and did.
Hammering the same old ineffective dogma from a precious pulpit is not effective leadership for a diverse culture.
11
The hammering of the same old ineffective dogma has constantly come from only one side of the political isle for six long years, the side that wants to turn us back to the past.
25
Obama said the things that needed to be said. Its a given not much will change in the next two years, which is ok, if it keeps the republicans from giving anymore of the country away to the koch brothers and the other plutocrats they so shamelessly serve.
From this day forward Obama should spend his time making insistent requests of the congress to address the needs of the middle class, the poor and oh, yeah, the immigrant population. That they will do nothing is a given;that has been their raison d'être for the past six years. But with the spotlight on them constantly, perhaps some of the independents will eventually come to see them for who they are.
Having spent 8 years in a self destruct mode under Bush and the past 6 in an attempt to rebuild, with virtually no help from the conservatives in congress, Obama has only to keep them in the limelight while They show us " how to govern ." If it wasn't so tragic, it would make for good comedy.
From this day forward Obama should spend his time making insistent requests of the congress to address the needs of the middle class, the poor and oh, yeah, the immigrant population. That they will do nothing is a given;that has been their raison d'être for the past six years. But with the spotlight on them constantly, perhaps some of the independents will eventually come to see them for who they are.
Having spent 8 years in a self destruct mode under Bush and the past 6 in an attempt to rebuild, with virtually no help from the conservatives in congress, Obama has only to keep them in the limelight while They show us " how to govern ." If it wasn't so tragic, it would make for good comedy.
68
Can we just stop looking for what is wrong and focus on finding common ground and solutions for all? Responsible compromise versus constant combat.......remember when politics was a team sport and things got done? Work together people, we need to be respectful and find a way out of this no-win way of running our great country. Can we please be the united states!
peace be you all.
peace be you all.
7
Combative is fine if you want to go down fighting. It doesn't work real well if you actually want to accomplish something. But I think President Obama is unwilling to compromise, so if you think little got done in the past few years, just wait for the next two. I predict lots of vetoes.
It doesn't have to be this way. There is agreement between Republicans and the President on trade authority, and tax reform could be achieved if Mr. Obama doesn't use it as merely an opportunity to raise taxes. But I'm not optimistic.
It doesn't have to be this way. There is agreement between Republicans and the President on trade authority, and tax reform could be achieved if Mr. Obama doesn't use it as merely an opportunity to raise taxes. But I'm not optimistic.
23
Tell the Republican party of NO that their non agenda does not work well. You are criticizing the wrong party.
22
President Obama was all too willing to compromise in the early years, and we saw what that got him from a party whose publicly stated top priority was to deny him a second term and anything that could be interpreted as a legislative victory, even on initiatives where there was clear bipartisan support.
And the President is not proposing raising taxes; he's proposing shifting them somewhat, from the overtaxed middle class to the undertaxed upper class.
And the President is not proposing raising taxes; he's proposing shifting them somewhat, from the overtaxed middle class to the undertaxed upper class.
8
The president tried compromising with Republicans for most of his presidency and all it got him were watered down bills and claims from the opposition that he's a tyrant because he won't do everything they want. Compromise means BOTH sides have to give, and the GOP has been unwilling to compromise on ANY issue.
The reason why nothing has gotten done in Congress in years is mostly because of a divided Congress. The House was on one side, the Senate on the other. Neither side wanted to vote on the others bills. I expect more bills will pass now, but I don't expect it will be that much more because senators and congressmen devote most of their time to raising money. Until that changes, I don't see a more productive Congress in our future.
The reason why nothing has gotten done in Congress in years is mostly because of a divided Congress. The House was on one side, the Senate on the other. Neither side wanted to vote on the others bills. I expect more bills will pass now, but I don't expect it will be that much more because senators and congressmen devote most of their time to raising money. Until that changes, I don't see a more productive Congress in our future.
2
Six years into his presidency we get this? We were hoping for this on day one but that hope was, evidently, as misguided as that of a five year old waiting on Santa Claus. Shame not on the President or even on the Republicans. Shame on us.
7
“Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?”
So taking from the rich and giving it to the middle class is his, and the NYT editorial board's, idea of an economy that generates rising incomes?? Preposterous on its face. Redistribution is not economic policy, and it will only result in wasteful spending by government bureaucracies. It will do nothing to increase wages for the middle class or increase the labor participation rate. Pure nonsense from the President.
So taking from the rich and giving it to the middle class is his, and the NYT editorial board's, idea of an economy that generates rising incomes?? Preposterous on its face. Redistribution is not economic policy, and it will only result in wasteful spending by government bureaucracies. It will do nothing to increase wages for the middle class or increase the labor participation rate. Pure nonsense from the President.
6
For many many years the Republican agenda has been redistributing wealth from the middle class to the rich...until there is little left to actually fuel this republic. Maybe a little socialism would create a better healthier balance. In the past taxes have been much higher on the wealthy an we prospered. People cannot keep taking from the golden goose.
21
The Republicans have done everything in their power (with great success) to redistribute wealth upward, from the workers to owners. Our current trickle-down tax structure reflects this. The president is simply talking about restoring the income balance that existed from the Eisenhower through Reagan years. Yes, take it from the rich, who have stolen it over the past three decades, and return the wealth to the people who actually create it—the workers of the middle class.
26
Just about all economic policy involves redistribution! In the bad old days, wealth was redistributed to the monarch and feudal lords. Wealth is redistributed every time taxes are paid. Right now wealth is redistributed upwards from workers, who are not getting decent wages from their employers for the work they perform. Redistributing revenue more evenly to people of lower income levels is only fair and what a great democracy should do -- our past course on this front has been equally willful, but far more destructive.
7
This editorial is on the right track. It was so disappointing after the speech to hear the Beltway journalists stuck in the mud of their cynicism, not getting it that Obama is on a constructive course for the strategic future, inspired by classical American idealism, in tune with the progress being made and his own numbers climbing as he increasingly leads the country, preparing the road to the next election when much larger numbers of voters will have been taught a far superior course than the reactionist (not conservative) GOP can muster. The real question is whether the things the President said are true and right, not how did Republicans hear them. He is rising above the past; they and the cynics are falling behind.
39
Might have been a great speech, but I didn't listen. I am too angry. Why didn't he do this six years ago and mean it? He NEVER intended for progressive agendas to be successful. He is a multinational guy, period. He had to dance with those that brought him. From the TPTT and other give away treaties for multinationals, no public option, continuing conflicts around the world for NO GOOD REASON, except for oil and gas and war profiteers, many of whom are banks, He allowed most of the Keystone pipline to be built as other pipelines were too, letting dangerous drilling and fracking continue, when we could have had what Germany has by now in spades of cheap renewable energy. He gave organic food lip service, but supported big ag by omission of broadcasting its dangers to the public. Now I'm stuck with GMO alfalfa in my neighborhood. Goodby any decent hay. Even the deer aren't eating wild, with the GMO corn and soy in the fields. Oil and gas rule, with dirty Cove Point approved on the Chesapeake, with piddling money thrown at the great Chesapeake's clean up. His eleventh hour dance of populism rings hallow for me. I can no longer accept his line of balogne. I am a jlted Obama lover. I am a progressive PROFOUNDLY disappointed.
13
And which Congress was going to pass the legislation required for all this? Certainly not one that has been in office since I reached voting age (pre-Reagan).
Fine. Be angry at President Obama because he did not wave a magic wand and make the US a progressive paradise. Ignore the huge accomplishments he did manage in the face of staggering opposition. Sit home and not vote or vote for for the granola candidate who will get one percent of the vote while the corruption that is the GOP gets the whole salami does away with the last vestiges of fairness, freedom, democracy, etc.
My fellow lefties are our own worst enemy sometimes.
Fine. Be angry at President Obama because he did not wave a magic wand and make the US a progressive paradise. Ignore the huge accomplishments he did manage in the face of staggering opposition. Sit home and not vote or vote for for the granola candidate who will get one percent of the vote while the corruption that is the GOP gets the whole salami does away with the last vestiges of fairness, freedom, democracy, etc.
My fellow lefties are our own worst enemy sometimes.
3
It is now official: the President is not serious about governing in a bipartisan way during his lame duck years. What is jaw dropping is the stupendous audacity of essentially redistributing even more income from one group to another without creating anything. The old adage of "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime." Obama is talking about triple taxing capital gains, which have already been taxed twice. I know the Democratic Party's core philosophy is "tax and spend", but seriously?
8
Take away a man's fish and he starves. And the Republicans have been hoarding the fish for three decades, redistributing income upward. It's time to restore the balance.
8
What about the "stupendous audacity" of shifting wealth from the middle class to the mega wealthy during the Reagan and Bushes' years? Just saying.
3
Perhaps Obama had finally realized that "governing in a bipartisan way" is not possible when the sole Republican agenda is to obstruct everything Obama does (an agenda made necessary because Republicans have nothing to offer anyone who isn't a billionaire, a corporation, or a donor).
For that matter, "redistributing income from one group to another without creating anything" is exactly what Republican policies have been doing since Reagan-- redistributing the nation's wealth to the 0.1% through regressive tax cuts, deregulation, and the destruction of labor unions. The result has been stagnant wages for workers while CEO compensation increased to gluttonous levels, and persistent unemployment or underemployment for an entire generation. The "trickle-down" promises of Reaganomics have proved empty and dangerous lies, yet Republicans still offer them as a solution to the nation's economic ills. Rather than teaching anyone to fish, Republicans are intent on giving all the fish to their donors and letting everyone else starve.
But it's no at all surprising that someone indoctrinated by Fox News would feel righteous indignation about Obama's proposal to correct some of the damage caused by three decades of redistribution of wealth to the wealthy, who have shown no sign of trickling down any of it.
For that matter, "redistributing income from one group to another without creating anything" is exactly what Republican policies have been doing since Reagan-- redistributing the nation's wealth to the 0.1% through regressive tax cuts, deregulation, and the destruction of labor unions. The result has been stagnant wages for workers while CEO compensation increased to gluttonous levels, and persistent unemployment or underemployment for an entire generation. The "trickle-down" promises of Reaganomics have proved empty and dangerous lies, yet Republicans still offer them as a solution to the nation's economic ills. Rather than teaching anyone to fish, Republicans are intent on giving all the fish to their donors and letting everyone else starve.
But it's no at all surprising that someone indoctrinated by Fox News would feel righteous indignation about Obama's proposal to correct some of the damage caused by three decades of redistribution of wealth to the wealthy, who have shown no sign of trickling down any of it.
4
Brilliant, good, honorable ideas have just become another way to win "office". Unfortunately, winning office and implementing those ideas into actions is just not possible by democratic party.
Ideas with out genuine belief in them is like fire without light.
Ideas with out genuine belief in them is like fire without light.
1
Whatever the detractors say, this President will go down as one of the best in history. His personal story alone has decisively broken rational, ethnic and religious barriers. Obamacare will remembered as a new deal type moment for time immemorial. He re-opened Cuba, and took the first step to legalising 5 million immigrants. He concluded two wars and will hand over an economy and a nation significantly better off than what he inherited. Many a president have achieved a strong legacy, with a lot less.
48
"Even Republicans, disinclined to raise taxes on top-tier earners, may find attractive the idea of doing something for those in the middle."
Most of those in the middle vote Republican. Most Democrats consider this voting pattern irrational because they fail to comprehend the interests of the middle class. When the government refrains from expanding Medicaid, food stamps, and other expensive programs for the poor, the middle class is not required to chip in more to the government till. Republicans do something for the middle class when they do nothing. And it is a costly Democratic blind spot not to understand this.
Most of those in the middle vote Republican. Most Democrats consider this voting pattern irrational because they fail to comprehend the interests of the middle class. When the government refrains from expanding Medicaid, food stamps, and other expensive programs for the poor, the middle class is not required to chip in more to the government till. Republicans do something for the middle class when they do nothing. And it is a costly Democratic blind spot not to understand this.
1
So letting the poor rot, keep spending on expensive wars, tax breaks for Big Corporations and leaving the middle class with the bill is the wise way to govern and convince the middle class to vote Republican? If that's the case the great middle class needs to stop being jealous of the poor and understand that there is another group that could and should pay.
2
That's the guy I voted for 6 years ago. Where has he been? How does he intend to level the playing field against the goals of the largest contributors?
9
Combative? I saw petulant. Immature. Sophomoric. An wounded ego on a stage A defeated playground bully. All those characteristics that kept his man from greatness.
Lacking the wisdom to understand what can be accomplished, he accomplishes little, leaving in his wake destructive policy that does more harm than good.
This is the legacy of a man more focused on himself than with any objective he claimed to favor.
Lacking the wisdom to understand what can be accomplished, he accomplishes little, leaving in his wake destructive policy that does more harm than good.
This is the legacy of a man more focused on himself than with any objective he claimed to favor.
6
I think you should check your ideology-googles. Even if you disagree with Obama, calling him "immature" etc. is clearly wrong -- it means you are unable to objectively evaluate someone with whom you disagree. And that is not good for anyone, you above all.
4
I heard esteemed rock n roll legend Graham Nash tell the audience on MSNBC a few weeks ago: "The wealthy have the people just where they want them and don't expect them to give up their grip." Let's not be naive. The middle class was just a brief phenomenon in the sands of time. The rich and powerful will never have enough power, money or ego to satiate themselves. Nothing short of violent revolution will change this markedly in this country. I am sorry for those who missed the ride during 1950-1975.
21
Graham Nash did pretty good under the hated capitalist system. Just another hypocrite
All these comments suggesting that the Republican Party had a "mandate" in the 2014 elections seem to forget that only 37% of the eligible American voters actually went to the polls.
28
Power belongs to those who vote. The Republicans have masterfully suppressed the voting of the Democratic base while convincing actual middle class voters to cast ballots against their own interests. If we're going to take the country back, the working class is going to have to get off its backside and vote, even if it's inconvenient.
3
Exactly. And, keep in mind, the Democrats won 1.5 MILLION MORE votes than the Repulicants. Lying. Cheating. Stealing. It's what the Republicants, the party of no, the party of billionaires, does best.
1
It was gratifying to see the President parade a list of economic successes with the punch-line: "we have to do more".
The Republican mantra has been "he hasn't done enough" for so long that it was amusing to watch the new Republican majority sit on their hands and refuse to applaud the very glittery generalities they've hidden behind for years.
They looked seriously confused when asked for a new AUMF under the same rubric of "do more". After several years of hiding their failure to legislate behind phony investigations into nonexistent scandals, while stoking the flames of culture wars in the shadows, they appear to have been suddenly bathed in sunlight.
The Republican mantra has been "he hasn't done enough" for so long that it was amusing to watch the new Republican majority sit on their hands and refuse to applaud the very glittery generalities they've hidden behind for years.
They looked seriously confused when asked for a new AUMF under the same rubric of "do more". After several years of hiding their failure to legislate behind phony investigations into nonexistent scandals, while stoking the flames of culture wars in the shadows, they appear to have been suddenly bathed in sunlight.
7
The President is the lamest of ducks. He can quack all he wants. But, like the middle and working classes he champions, he "remains dead in the water."
3
What I heard is a call to the states to stand up for Americans when Congress will not. And they have, with minimum wage increases becoming the norm, with same-sex marriage legalized state to state, with states like Tennessee allowing more people access to community college. As president of these United States, Mr. Obama is right to take his case to the states. We are listening, and we are taking action.
18
I felt he looked like his old self last night. Hopefully, he's done trying to work out compromises with the GOP congress and makes full use of pen signing executive orders.
22
While President Obama's speech was a clarion call to greater equality of income and opportunity, the ongoing trends in politics and economics are moving toward even greater inequality. The wealthiest, keen to protect their privileges, have become increasingly adept at manipulating the political system, including the judiciary, to further their ends, working behind the scenes as a faceless force. No applaudable rhetoric will be permitted to stand in the way of a growing inequality that some will hail as the triumphal fruits of capitalism.
21
William, what Obama was advocating last night will do nothing to "raise the middle class." He was talking about raising the number of people receiving welfare payments from the government. Period. Welfare is ignoble trap that breeds generations of psychologically disabled individuals who believe they themselves do not have the talent or capacity to take care of themselves. It's fundamentally racist and classist; a form of noblesse oblige that allows the liberal elite to think they are helping "the poor". We can, and must do better. This president can no longer be taken seriously.
History will be favorable to President Obama. People forget that this president inherited a Near Depression and two long wars. When Obama took office, no one knew if American auto companies would survive. The American auto manufacturers now employ 1 million workers, thanks in part, to President Obama.
The Affordable Care Act may be flawed, but it is the best policy possible at the time and it is the first step toward health care reform that has been stalled for decades.
The near depression kept this president from pursuing many of his original goals. Many idealists are dissatisfied. But Obama has still been a remarkable president.
The Affordable Care Act may be flawed, but it is the best policy possible at the time and it is the first step toward health care reform that has been stalled for decades.
The near depression kept this president from pursuing many of his original goals. Many idealists are dissatisfied. But Obama has still been a remarkable president.
35
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Need more be said?
5
Thank you, President Obama, for reminding us what we can do!
The next two years of Republican and Fox News domination will be a hard endurance for a detained America.
One glimmer of hope emerges with the prospect that RaFN will so ridiculously and rabidly attempt to dismantle common sense democracy and equitable economic balance that 2016 will be a revolutionary cakewalk return to the tasks of fairness, cooperation, and mutual respect for ordinary people, the businesses, and the governance involved in the still incomplete experiment that will become the United States of America.
The next two years of Republican and Fox News domination will be a hard endurance for a detained America.
One glimmer of hope emerges with the prospect that RaFN will so ridiculously and rabidly attempt to dismantle common sense democracy and equitable economic balance that 2016 will be a revolutionary cakewalk return to the tasks of fairness, cooperation, and mutual respect for ordinary people, the businesses, and the governance involved in the still incomplete experiment that will become the United States of America.
3
This president simply cannot allow himself to come to terms with one simple fact: he has been made irrelevant. America has rejected his policies, his tax and spend message, his left-wing Socialist agenda--indeed in November, we rejected him personally and completely.
But in the end, he's no Bill Clinton: no amount of repudiation, no electoral loss is devastating enough to chasten him into moderating his Left-wing redistributive goals. The country has elected a legislature guaranteed to stymie his every impulse--but unwilling to admit fault, he thinks he'd like to go it alone.
It's sad really....that our country will have to endure the next 2 years, listening to this arrogant pontificator pretending to matter. If only the country could snap its collective fingers and make this guy go away--and replace him with someone who believes in the principles that built this country--free market Capitalism and individual responsibility. Tick tock, tick tock.
But in the end, he's no Bill Clinton: no amount of repudiation, no electoral loss is devastating enough to chasten him into moderating his Left-wing redistributive goals. The country has elected a legislature guaranteed to stymie his every impulse--but unwilling to admit fault, he thinks he'd like to go it alone.
It's sad really....that our country will have to endure the next 2 years, listening to this arrogant pontificator pretending to matter. If only the country could snap its collective fingers and make this guy go away--and replace him with someone who believes in the principles that built this country--free market Capitalism and individual responsibility. Tick tock, tick tock.
4
If only we could snap our fingers and make your ilk go away.
By the bye, the president was elected and re-elected. The sad part is we have an obstructionist, do-nothing Republican Party in control of both houses. Sadder yet is how so many folks get hoodwinked into voting against their own best interests...you included. Wake up!
By the bye, the president was elected and re-elected. The sad part is we have an obstructionist, do-nothing Republican Party in control of both houses. Sadder yet is how so many folks get hoodwinked into voting against their own best interests...you included. Wake up!
11
With gerrymandering, Republicans need just 45% of the vote to control the House. With voter suppression, they make sure they get it. The Republicans have rigged the system to create the appearance of a mandate when in fact there is none. And "free-market Capitalism" brought us the robber barons and polluters. That ticking sound you hear is the Republican countdown to the end of the American Dream.
1
@YoDaveG, truth is, we Conservatives need voter suppression and gerrymandering--to counteract the 47% of Americans who try to vote themselves free stuff. Sad isn't it....how easy it is to keep Liberals from going to the polls?
A combative and defiant Obama is exactly what we need. Why should he or anyone else pretend to respect the shallow, greedy, short-sighted values of the party that proclaims selfishness to be a virtue, in fact to be the apex of patriotism? Though Obama may not be able to wrestle the Republicans to the ground, he can strip them naked of their disguises, for example their concern for the welfare of the American people-- or for that matter the welfare of the planet--and expose them to the contempt that they deserve.
Because of the power of the United States, they are not only a danger to the American people, but also to the world.
Because of the power of the United States, they are not only a danger to the American people, but also to the world.
29
Perhaps Obama is a voice crying in the wilderness. He hopes for comity, a survival of hope in a hurricane of abuse and obstruction. But the fractious nature of the public is not unique to America. Populist rage burns in many places; even in Old Europe, right-wing parties rise although bereft of any policy other than "Go home, stranger."
We see two defects of democracy work hand in hand: the wealthy who manipulate public frustration and suborn rage; and too-large a segment of the public fail to notice the rings in their noses.
But the energy and good-humor of Obama are positives in a society that badly needs hope.
We see two defects of democracy work hand in hand: the wealthy who manipulate public frustration and suborn rage; and too-large a segment of the public fail to notice the rings in their noses.
But the energy and good-humor of Obama are positives in a society that badly needs hope.
12
Job one, and it should be a piece of cake, over the next 24 months is to lay bare the GOP mantra of low taxes and trickle-down. To buy the Republican agenda, one has to suspend disbelief, blind oneself to abundant facts, and still take as gospel (pun intended) that maintaining low tax rates (even on non-earned income) and absurdly low minimum wages, all the while condoning executive theft, will keep this country competitive. It will not. But, from the last midterm, it is clear the electorate is asleep. And that is somewhat understandable - after all, who doesn't have a flat panel TV, nice cars, etc. Oh, yeah, the poor. Well, they've been conveniently swept under the carpet. Happy days are here - until they are not. The cracks in the nation's economic foundation are there for all to see, but we have to look. They're even talking about wealth inequality in Davos this week, albeit over single malts and caviar. The president needs to constantly pound this drum, citing indisputable facts. After all, when the oligarchs start talking about the problem, you know it's obvious, and you know they're worried. Time to turn up the heat. And, please, no Clinton - to do so would surely be to hand the last branch of government over to the GOP. Warren, '16.
12
Obama wants cooperation but taunts the GOP and, in effect, mockis the people who voted for them thereby dismissing the democratic process.
It's going to be a long two years.
It's going to be a long two years.
2
Who expects anything else from him? By now Americans are familiar with his lecturing style and tendency to blame others.
It is no coincidence that the president now faces a GOP majority. Wonder how his party's members felt when he reminded everyone of *his* wins. Typical Obama.
It is no coincidence that the president now faces a GOP majority. Wonder how his party's members felt when he reminded everyone of *his* wins. Typical Obama.
1
When GOP controlled just the House, it became a do nothing congress, although Dems controlled the senate then.
Now, if GOP passes legislation and Obama vetoes it bill after bill, does he become a do nothing president?
Oh I get it, GOP is supposed to pass only the Dem agenda. Anything else, they will be branded do nothingers. Such endearing objectivity around here.
Now, if GOP passes legislation and Obama vetoes it bill after bill, does he become a do nothing president?
Oh I get it, GOP is supposed to pass only the Dem agenda. Anything else, they will be branded do nothingers. Such endearing objectivity around here.
1
I thought it was a great speech. I like the phrase Middle Class Economics". It's what Democrats should stand for, and repeat over and over. Clearly, the GOP is not and never has been on the side of the average struggling American. Was he really combative??? That's not the word I would have chosen.
16
Combative indeed! I'm certain that's undoubtedly the way to a more unified Washington, right? I'm sure that's a direct route to a more unified America. Just keep poking your finger in the eye of anyone who disagrees, make no attempt to bridge the gap between you and the "adversary"and don't give a single inch. Heavens! It is about as charming and engaging and inspiring as your average pit bull. I'm certain the same methods have worked bridging racial divide, I know that's how you win in business.......yeah right.
1
Presidents get far more blame than they deserve, and claim far more credit than they merit. Both were on display last night.
President Obama so clearly spoke from his heart. Indeed, as he said, it is too easy to be cynical. I heard his speech not as combative but as the mature words of a leader offering renewed hope. One of those days you just feel proud to be an American.
14
When he first took the presidency, the serious focus should've been the economy, the economy, the economy. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Instead - the public was sold falsehoods "shovel ready jobs". And loads of money contained in the stimulus for 'infrastructure' "roads, bridges, highways" - which turned out to be less than 10% of the stimulus, and which the federal govt had no accountability but for making the governor of each stimulus recipient state sign a 'certification' that the stimulus $$$ would be spent within certain unachievable parameters. And Obama "pivoted" away, away, away .... only to request hundreds of millions more a few years later, after sheepishly acknowledging that 'shovel ready jobs' did not actually exist. This Administration simply believed that the economy would eventually improve on its own, and it would get the credit for same ( which its doing, with a highly complicit (wink, wink) still-fawning media.
3
This point by the Times--that Obama must "resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise ...[and] not confuse the voters as to where the responsibility lies"-- is an acute insight into the strategic political failure of President Obama. But Obama has not merely attached his cart to the false promise of compromise. Every time he has referred to the intransigence of "Congress" he has undermined his own Democratic colleagues, when they were not the obstacle and they should have been bolstered. Obama's gross unfairness to his own Democratic legislative colleagues in Congress, tarring them with the same brush that he tarred the Republicans with--and "confusing the voters as to where the responsibility lies" shows how politically daft the man is, and as the Times points out, reveals the depth of his commitment to the false promise of compromise. He has been naive and he has too often made himself a tool of the forces he should have been strengthening. When he said in the middle of a depression, that the federal government needed to tighten its own belt, when in fact even more federal expenditure was required by Keynesian economics, underscore the daft commitment to the false promise of compromise. But anything is better than a Republican in office. And the American people, if they didn't find that out during the Bush regime, will receive a rude awakening as the Plutocratic Reactionary Party--known as the Republican Party--takes the helm.
5
The rhetoric that republicans need to see some willingness from Obama to work with them finally needs to be put down like a rabid dog. Ditto for claiming that Obama's agenda is not what the people of America want or need. It's a tactic to contain the speech before it's even taken in to dispose of it lock stock and barrel.
People are complaining that why didn't Obama do this until his last two years. What about his first two years squandered reaching out to republicans that turned him down cold. It took the budget hijacking of 2010 to finally convince him that republicans were a lost cause. Now they have the nerve to come back and say he won't work with them? They need to be confronted with this each and every time they claim Obama won't play ball with them. So far, I have not heard it reputed at all, not once by anyone in the media.
I'll put it flat out there: McConnell is a liar. The goals that Obama highlighted were passed on referendum even in red states. Never has there been a more definitive showing that the bald statement of McConnell to be proven a flat out lie. Again, it needs to be called out for the lie that it is every time he lies.
People are complaining that why didn't Obama do this until his last two years. What about his first two years squandered reaching out to republicans that turned him down cold. It took the budget hijacking of 2010 to finally convince him that republicans were a lost cause. Now they have the nerve to come back and say he won't work with them? They need to be confronted with this each and every time they claim Obama won't play ball with them. So far, I have not heard it reputed at all, not once by anyone in the media.
I'll put it flat out there: McConnell is a liar. The goals that Obama highlighted were passed on referendum even in red states. Never has there been a more definitive showing that the bald statement of McConnell to be proven a flat out lie. Again, it needs to be called out for the lie that it is every time he lies.
21
When George W. Bush was president Republicans passed legislation costing millions in government funds (ex, war and prescription med insurance) by putting the costs off until later. What about doing the same for Obama's economic program as proposed in TSOTU address. It would sure put McConnell and Boehner in a difficult position to turn down legislation for the middle class and poor that had no costs.
And besides there is no reason to expect borrowing costs are going to increase significantly in the next few years, so under a new administration the cost can be paid. This is a basic economic responsibility.
And besides there is no reason to expect borrowing costs are going to increase significantly in the next few years, so under a new administration the cost can be paid. This is a basic economic responsibility.
1
William, you are right on target but with one minor correction, where you use Millions with an M that should be Billions with a B otherwise, spot on ;-)
1
"But Republicans said Mr. Obama risked looking ineffectual and out of touch if he simply promoted initiatives that Congress would never take seriously."
This quote from one of today's earlier articles made me laugh. Who is going to look "ineffectual" by not taking some of these initiatives seriously?
In his State of the Union, President Obama is calling their (the Republican's) bluff, bringing to the forefront issues that concern most Americans (not just those interests which the Party-of-No has been bought and paid by) and forcing them to take a public stand as to why they are actually against these initiatives. I believe he fully knows that there will be huge blowback and no chance to succeed on most fronts, but he also knows that by proposing these initiatives, he is actually making the opposition actually define what they stand for and why they are so against anything that might help the middle class or risk looking "ineffectual and out of touch" themselves.
This quote from one of today's earlier articles made me laugh. Who is going to look "ineffectual" by not taking some of these initiatives seriously?
In his State of the Union, President Obama is calling their (the Republican's) bluff, bringing to the forefront issues that concern most Americans (not just those interests which the Party-of-No has been bought and paid by) and forcing them to take a public stand as to why they are actually against these initiatives. I believe he fully knows that there will be huge blowback and no chance to succeed on most fronts, but he also knows that by proposing these initiatives, he is actually making the opposition actually define what they stand for and why they are so against anything that might help the middle class or risk looking "ineffectual and out of touch" themselves.
10
First, let us be clear what the president asked for: a few crumbs for the people. Modest increase in taxes on the rich so that the middle and lower strata to moderately reduce their burdens. Make no mistake about it, the Republican response--that the president is uncompromising--is basically a "stuff it!" attitude on their part. Instead of take into account the people's interests, the Republican response to the State of the Union address is worse than "let them eat cake." It is whatever they've got now is as much as they deserve, and not a dime more should go to them. All of you out there, besides the 1 per centers, you don't know what the president is talking about? How hard it is to pay for private school and that weekly $300 price for a cart of groceries? You don't need a break while some people are making virtually limitless incomes? And not because they're the job makers. But because corporate ethics in this country give CEO's the contractual gold of extracting the highest rent from firms as they can extract, while being free of any fiduciary responsibility to the members of their firms, which would include a responsibility to the workers in those firms. So the Republican response, it needs to be recognized, is purely "ancient regime," old French aristocracy talking, has nothing to do with American traditions, is an insult to the dignity of the ordinary person, who's interests are the farthest thing from the minds of the Republican legislators.
17
So easy to be a threat so hard to be a leader.
3
Lip service, nothing more.
Where was this speech in 2009? Oh yeah, he was busy coddling the big banks and throwing Elizabeth Warren and Paul Volcker under the bus.
Obama talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Only now, when he CAN'T get these initiatives through Congress, does he suggest them. When he coukd have? Crickets.
He is simply trying to win back liberals so that Hillary can win in 2016 and stab us in the back.
From Clinton repealing Glass Steagall and passing NAFTA to Obama pushing the Trans Pacific Partnership and continuing every one of George Bush's economic policies, Neoliberal Democrats have become the Republican dream.
Yes, it was a wonderful speech. But that's all it was, empty words.
Anybody But Clinton in 2016.
Where was this speech in 2009? Oh yeah, he was busy coddling the big banks and throwing Elizabeth Warren and Paul Volcker under the bus.
Obama talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Only now, when he CAN'T get these initiatives through Congress, does he suggest them. When he coukd have? Crickets.
He is simply trying to win back liberals so that Hillary can win in 2016 and stab us in the back.
From Clinton repealing Glass Steagall and passing NAFTA to Obama pushing the Trans Pacific Partnership and continuing every one of George Bush's economic policies, Neoliberal Democrats have become the Republican dream.
Yes, it was a wonderful speech. But that's all it was, empty words.
Anybody But Clinton in 2016.
7
"Obama talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Only now, when he CAN'T get these initiatives through Congress, does he suggest them. When he coukd have? Crickets."
The house was burning when he took office. There were a few other jobs to do, and you know what? He did those jobs, he did them well and he's received a smidgin of credit and a dump-truck full of sneering animosity from the people he's helped.
Given that, I'd sure like him to be transparent in the TTP negotiations.
The house was burning when he took office. There were a few other jobs to do, and you know what? He did those jobs, he did them well and he's received a smidgin of credit and a dump-truck full of sneering animosity from the people he's helped.
Given that, I'd sure like him to be transparent in the TTP negotiations.
3
"There is one other thing he must do: Resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise. Give-and-take is part of the legislative process, but trade-offs amounting to Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable. Gridlock seems almost foreordained over the next two years. Mr. Obama should do nothing to confuse the voters as to where the responsibility lies."
You forgot to mention:
Make sure that VETO pen is filled with ink, and be ready to use it whenever necessary.
(He should have understood 6 years ago that when you have the majority in BOTH houses, you USE it, not "compromise" with Republicans.)
You forgot to mention:
Make sure that VETO pen is filled with ink, and be ready to use it whenever necessary.
(He should have understood 6 years ago that when you have the majority in BOTH houses, you USE it, not "compromise" with Republicans.)
2
"Combative" and "defiant" after an election that handed Congress to the Republicans because a good chunk of voters had given up on the President, Democrats and politics. No fight, no demands, no significant roar to action until they have lost all power to actually do something for those they claim to represent. As the editorial acknowledges, this is campaign rhetoric, setting the stage for the election in two years. And, that's the Democrats. Weak-kneed, caving in for six years and now prepping for the next election. And, of course, putting the focus, as always, on promises for what they will do for the middle class. The poor will be brought up about six months before the vote. Promises, promises, promises. Words, not actions, until they start their campaigns. I don't believe them anymore. Wall Street and the billionaires continue to control Washington and politics at every level in the country, Democrats or Republicans. Now we'll hear how Hilary has reformed her ways and views and Romney will be a knight in shining armor for the downtrodden and despaired. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was. America the Beautiful? Yeah, right. America for Billionaires. There are very few elected that I have faith in anymore and the ones that have already started their campaigns and money grubbing ain't it.
5
The New York Times keeps calling the President "combative". Except in a few places--like the forceful reminder he'd been duly elected twice-- I'd be more inclined to use the word "passionate" and "forceful."
Which is why the speech was more gripping than a typical State of the Union. It actually sounded like a campaign speech, a call to arms for Democrats. Assuming many were listening, I particularly liked the forceful way he pushed progressive themes. No shame, no couching, no embarrassment about asking the rich to pay more. Whoever wrote the speech---and I know the President tinkers up until the final minutes--is one damned fine writer.
Even more important, it was relatively short, and well organized. Broad themes, supported with facts. A self-pat on the back describing his achievements on the economy and war. Then a eloquent endorsement of righting the wrongs of economic inequality. Along with many, about the only thing I disagreed with was his puzzling promotion of the TPP--to my mind, just an excuse to export more jobs and enrich more multinational corporations.
I hope the Democratic candidates were listening. Yes, I said candidates. Because to have a robust debate that takes a page from this speech, we need more than one. But even if it's one, I hope she was listening and listening hard. To this perfect playbook of workable solutions for the many political, economic, and social inequities still challenging our nation.
Which is why the speech was more gripping than a typical State of the Union. It actually sounded like a campaign speech, a call to arms for Democrats. Assuming many were listening, I particularly liked the forceful way he pushed progressive themes. No shame, no couching, no embarrassment about asking the rich to pay more. Whoever wrote the speech---and I know the President tinkers up until the final minutes--is one damned fine writer.
Even more important, it was relatively short, and well organized. Broad themes, supported with facts. A self-pat on the back describing his achievements on the economy and war. Then a eloquent endorsement of righting the wrongs of economic inequality. Along with many, about the only thing I disagreed with was his puzzling promotion of the TPP--to my mind, just an excuse to export more jobs and enrich more multinational corporations.
I hope the Democratic candidates were listening. Yes, I said candidates. Because to have a robust debate that takes a page from this speech, we need more than one. But even if it's one, I hope she was listening and listening hard. To this perfect playbook of workable solutions for the many political, economic, and social inequities still challenging our nation.
15
The Republicans made it clear by their choice of a rebuttal spokesperson in the person of Joanie Ernst and a chorus of people even "righter", that they will
undermine every program that the president has put forward.
It's business as usual, the store is open but the staff are out to lunch.
undermine every program that the president has put forward.
It's business as usual, the store is open but the staff are out to lunch.
5
I've been waiting 6 years for this level of leadership. What can he possible do now in the next 2?
1
Obama would proclaim, "Elections have consequences" in early 2009 and 2013.
So how come elections don't have consequences now? His policies were on the ballot in 2014. His party got destroyed on both the federal and state levels. Yet, for some strange reason, he is doubling down on the policies we the people rejected.
His arrogance knows no bounds.
So how come elections don't have consequences now? His policies were on the ballot in 2014. His party got destroyed on both the federal and state levels. Yet, for some strange reason, he is doubling down on the policies we the people rejected.
His arrogance knows no bounds.
6
"His arrogance knows no bounds."
His tenacity, his basic ethics (in agreement with mine), his clear-headed grasp of our situation and the fact he's still in tenaciously the game…. also know no bounds.
And I'm Really glad about that.
His tenacity, his basic ethics (in agreement with mine), his clear-headed grasp of our situation and the fact he's still in tenaciously the game…. also know no bounds.
And I'm Really glad about that.
8
Mr. Obama claims to have "won" the last two elections. That may be so as President but the last election, that is, the mid-terms in 2014 was a referendum on his policies -- he told us as much ("I'm not on the ballot but my policies are!") -- and he and those policies got trounced, shellacked, wasted, and repudiated, period.
4
Nope. The Republicans newly elected were voted in by a very small percentage of the voting population, so nothing to brag about there.
There's something fishy about the fact that he is proposing all of these wonderful things precisely at the point when they have zero chance of becoming reality. Sorry to be cynical, but isn't it possible it is "safe" to propose them now for that very reason? The Democrats tend to be as pro-corporate as the Republicans, if much more sneakily and covertly.
7
"Mr. Obama was speaking not just to the present but to the future, to the 2016 presidential elections and even beyond."
Mr. Obama is always focused on the next election rather than the job he was elected to do.
Mr. Obama is always focused on the next election rather than the job he was elected to do.
2
He campaigned last night, which is why the Congress is in republicans' hands. Americans prefer people who actually do things not talk about doing things. They also realize why things haven't been getting done.
2
Americans prefer President Obama. They elected him twice. He has done remarkably well considering the obstructionist Congress with its Tea Party extremists.
President Obama spoke proudly of his considerable successes: ending two devastating, hugely expensive, stupid wars; ending a dumb Cuban policy—a move that was decades overdue; establishing a much-needed health care system; proposing free community college and paid sick leave; and above all, taking our economy from “dead” to thriving. What’s not to like?
Your turn, Republicans. I doubt whether you’ll be able to achieve even a fraction of what the president has accomplished.
Your turn, Republicans. I doubt whether you’ll be able to achieve even a fraction of what the president has accomplished.
10
>
It was a good speech. I'm unsure why he did not give this speech when he was re-elected and at least controlled the Senate. Excluding some E.O.'s and vetoes, the most he'll be able to do is make the GOP look bad for 2016, which is a worthy cause just for drill.
The Democrats are so out of power (Fed, State and Local, SCOTUS) it should frighten any clear thinker. Moreover, even if the Dems took back the Senate and held the WH in 2016, the House will be ruled by the GOP until the gerrymandering is ended; don't hold your breath for that to happen in your lifetime.
If the idea of the speech was to set the framework for 2016, it may turnout to be a productive speech, but other than that it is bound for the ether.
It was a good speech. I'm unsure why he did not give this speech when he was re-elected and at least controlled the Senate. Excluding some E.O.'s and vetoes, the most he'll be able to do is make the GOP look bad for 2016, which is a worthy cause just for drill.
The Democrats are so out of power (Fed, State and Local, SCOTUS) it should frighten any clear thinker. Moreover, even if the Dems took back the Senate and held the WH in 2016, the House will be ruled by the GOP until the gerrymandering is ended; don't hold your breath for that to happen in your lifetime.
If the idea of the speech was to set the framework for 2016, it may turnout to be a productive speech, but other than that it is bound for the ether.
2
The president has a hard sell as he seeks to redefine his presidency, because we ALREADY "skim from the rich and redistribute to those below". And he hasn't made the case why doubling-down will yield better results than it has. The case he makes is that he wants to do things and there's only one place to go to find the required money -- regardless of how much we already take from the same people.
The top five percent of U.S. earners (down to about $283,000), those the president wishes to target for higher taxes, currently pays about 40% of total taxes already, federal and state (the top 10% pays about 50% of all taxes while the bottom 20% pays about 2% of all taxes). What the president argues is that the top 5% of earners don't need the money they earn and can afford to pay more, in order that he can do the things he wants to do.
Tough sell, and not just to the wealthy. First, it assumes his sense of "fairness" and rejects that our already highly progressive taxes are somehow "unfair"; then, it assumes that government has a more valid moral claim on earnings at higher earnings levels than the people who actually earn the money. Lots of Americans disagree with both positions -- this is, after all, America, founded on the importance of individuals over both the state and a view of the collective as espoused by interested elites.
He may still be combative, but he's unlikely to win many battles much less the war: he lacks the compelling arguments of "fairness" and the time.
The top five percent of U.S. earners (down to about $283,000), those the president wishes to target for higher taxes, currently pays about 40% of total taxes already, federal and state (the top 10% pays about 50% of all taxes while the bottom 20% pays about 2% of all taxes). What the president argues is that the top 5% of earners don't need the money they earn and can afford to pay more, in order that he can do the things he wants to do.
Tough sell, and not just to the wealthy. First, it assumes his sense of "fairness" and rejects that our already highly progressive taxes are somehow "unfair"; then, it assumes that government has a more valid moral claim on earnings at higher earnings levels than the people who actually earn the money. Lots of Americans disagree with both positions -- this is, after all, America, founded on the importance of individuals over both the state and a view of the collective as espoused by interested elites.
He may still be combative, but he's unlikely to win many battles much less the war: he lacks the compelling arguments of "fairness" and the time.
1
Obama's federal-government-centric agenda has always been dependent on a never-ending source of taxpayer funds. It's been amusing to watch how he disguises his reach into taxpayers' pockets. Few do it as well as he does.
Unfortunately, the jig is up. People pretty much get that it's really just income redistribution. You can only disguise it so many ways before people start noticing the black mustache and fake glasses. Even the very attractive giveaways cannot overcome the visceral distaste Americans have for income redistribution.
It's not the compelling argument he lacks. It's the ability and talent to do something significant about it, like tax reform. He talks big. Doing big is what others do. His majority is long gone. It will be up to republicans to address these problems. And democrats if they can get their heads back on straight.
Unfortunately, the jig is up. People pretty much get that it's really just income redistribution. You can only disguise it so many ways before people start noticing the black mustache and fake glasses. Even the very attractive giveaways cannot overcome the visceral distaste Americans have for income redistribution.
It's not the compelling argument he lacks. It's the ability and talent to do something significant about it, like tax reform. He talks big. Doing big is what others do. His majority is long gone. It will be up to republicans to address these problems. And democrats if they can get their heads back on straight.
2
AACNY:
Did you see Schumer and Durbin applauding and waxing euphoric over Barry's words? They obviously failed to look around and notice how many fewer Democrats there were in that chamber than there were last year. Thereby hangs the sad failure of a legacy that might have been.
Did you see Schumer and Durbin applauding and waxing euphoric over Barry's words? They obviously failed to look around and notice how many fewer Democrats there were in that chamber than there were last year. Thereby hangs the sad failure of a legacy that might have been.
1
If Obama proposed steps that would substantively improve the economic viability and mobility of the midddle class I would applaud.But all he proposes isputting the middle class further on the dole, creating the illusion of a better economic situation for the middle class but actually doing nothing to improve ability to advance one's own and one's family's interests. Further, doing it by pouring more money down the sinkhole of a failing community college system, which graduates 40% of enrollees and provides mainly remedial high school level "education" is incredibly foolish. The basic problem is strengthening education in the U.S. not perpetuating its failures and strengthening the family values that drive upward mobility, especially for the lower middle class and the poor of any race or ethnicity. Instead, he offers trivial, politically polarizing steps that make the situation worse. His legacy is that of a President who never learned how to function as an effective chief executive and clings to the role of community organizer, an inherently adversarial role.
3
We are fortunate to have a president that cared enough about "community" to try and organize and improve it. Of course it's an adversarial position. The GOP's greatest frustration is that people, like Obama, in communities across the country, are not subservient ..
3
Larry Summers and his cohorts had Obama so scared of the capital markets in 2009, that Obama shrugged off liberalism his entire first term and, instead, embraced Wall Streetism.
Obama was cowed by Wall Street players in a way FDR would not have been. Obama even said "If I say the wrong thing, it can rattle the markets", explaining his trepidation and lack of populism in a media interview. This was particularly embarrassing to watch from 2009-2011. The American people detected it and sent the Dems in the House packing in 2010.
Obama was wrong to be so scared of bankers. The Federal Reserve was speaking for Obama with trillions in MBS, asset and bond purchases (bailouts). Obama could have spoke in tongues, thrown-up and passed out, the market being pumped with trillions in liquidity wouldn't have cared.
Now, Obama probably knows he was fooled, now that the .01% own almost everything and the 1%, the rest. Obama may not have been our wisest or most experienced president when he took office, but he's a quick enough study to know he was misled by many and missed huge opportunities. His tack back to the left I read as, in part, regret.
Someday, I think this history will be written. For now, it's an observation.
Obama was cowed by Wall Street players in a way FDR would not have been. Obama even said "If I say the wrong thing, it can rattle the markets", explaining his trepidation and lack of populism in a media interview. This was particularly embarrassing to watch from 2009-2011. The American people detected it and sent the Dems in the House packing in 2010.
Obama was wrong to be so scared of bankers. The Federal Reserve was speaking for Obama with trillions in MBS, asset and bond purchases (bailouts). Obama could have spoke in tongues, thrown-up and passed out, the market being pumped with trillions in liquidity wouldn't have cared.
Now, Obama probably knows he was fooled, now that the .01% own almost everything and the 1%, the rest. Obama may not have been our wisest or most experienced president when he took office, but he's a quick enough study to know he was misled by many and missed huge opportunities. His tack back to the left I read as, in part, regret.
Someday, I think this history will be written. For now, it's an observation.
2
Astute observation. Considering who was in there preventing financial collapse, it's hard to see any other solutions emerging. Afterwards, though, was another story.
Even the republican, Bush, understood that taxpayers were going to be upset about the bailouts. Obama was clueless. He still doesn't understand the relationship between taxpayers and the government's use of their money.
Even the republican, Bush, understood that taxpayers were going to be upset about the bailouts. Obama was clueless. He still doesn't understand the relationship between taxpayers and the government's use of their money.
1
repeating the meme that it was the GOP that stopped this president from reaching any meaningful deals with congress doesn't make it so. He never established relationships with members of his own party...let alone the opposition. He has been diffident, isolated and insulated throughout his tenure. He is in short, wholly unsuited by temperament for the job he holds.
3
Once we get into full session after this speech, it will be interesting to see if Obama retains his spine or as he has done for the past 6 years folds like a house of cards in a gentle breeze. (I'm already looking for the broom and dust pan)
1
Have we turned the page? Is the economy growing and sustaining good jobs when the number of full time jobs continues to decline? Troops may be leaving Iraq and Afghanistan but with ISIS on the march is the region becoming more or less stable? Is the deficit under control when government expenditures exceed revenues by trillions of dollars? Is energy production really booming when the bond market is being shaken by energy company losses and pull backs in the face of declining fuel prices? Are businesses other than in the health care field "bustling"? Does a new type of international leadership mean when leaders from around the world gather to show solidarity in the face of the terrorism the US is absent? Can we fund massive infrastructure spending and finance community college for all who wish to attend entirely from increasing taxes on high earners? Is immigration reform more or less likely now that the President has established a precedent of limited enforcement? After six years of the President and Congress talking past each other are we entering a period of "new politics"?
Elections matter. Reality matters in a dangerous world. Economic laws, while not immutable, are rigid. This was a State of the Union address removed from those realities.
Elections matter. Reality matters in a dangerous world. Economic laws, while not immutable, are rigid. This was a State of the Union address removed from those realities.
1
True we are not there yet but we are much further along and much closer to peace than the last time a republican made the SOTU. As you note we are adding jobs, not great ones but adding is far better than loosing (last guy). ISIS is NOT on the march, this creation of republican middle eastern policy has in fact been checked though not defeated. ISIS military command is largely who--- former Iraq officers who the last administration fired out of hand without looking to see who might be useful.
In short by any objective measure the current white house has done far far more to strengthen America than the last republican who blew up the global economy and destroyed the stable regime in the middle east that functioned as a counter force to Iranian power.
In short by any objective measure the current white house has done far far more to strengthen America than the last republican who blew up the global economy and destroyed the stable regime in the middle east that functioned as a counter force to Iranian power.
1
The anti gun lobby should be upset, O does it an injustice.
President Obama was...speaking. What he does best. Actions are for others.
10
He was speaking, but some apparently chose not to listen. Otherwise, they'd have heard an impressive catalog of accomplishments.
12
Healthcare extended, bin Laden eliminated, the Gulf cleaned up, job growth progressed, cuts in the deficit (with Congressional help!) sustained, oil and solar production increased, manufacturing jobs added, effective coalitions built internationally--gee, AACNY, what has Boehner done for you (and the country!) for the last six years that didn't exclusively enhance the 1 %, what's he done by--way of acts--for the middle class?
A quick look at the White House flickr account shows the President is also remarkable with children! He is a family man who acts to include family in the work place, a powerful message of priorities reinforced in the SOTU.
A quick look at the White House flickr account shows the President is also remarkable with children! He is a family man who acts to include family in the work place, a powerful message of priorities reinforced in the SOTU.
6
Inaction is for others. There, fixed it for ya....
When Obama had a solid majority he was not the least combative. He stood for nothing but the very same things that Republicans stood for, although he had to do a lot a shifts to the left with double backs to the right in order to satisfy the right Corporations and continue to fool his base.
Now that populism has no chance to prevail, and he is largely handcuffed by a Republican Majority, he can afford to be the New Deal Democrat that he never was because he can no longer upset the applecart.
He must prepare the Progressives in his party, whom he had described as "professional lefties," to front for the next member of the Goldman Sachs Faction of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton. The New Deal may be dead, but the memory of fairness may still be mobilized to deceive, perhaps, just one more time.
Now that populism has no chance to prevail, and he is largely handcuffed by a Republican Majority, he can afford to be the New Deal Democrat that he never was because he can no longer upset the applecart.
He must prepare the Progressives in his party, whom he had described as "professional lefties," to front for the next member of the Goldman Sachs Faction of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton. The New Deal may be dead, but the memory of fairness may still be mobilized to deceive, perhaps, just one more time.
20
When did he have this "solid majority"?
I must have missed it.
All I remember is "Blue Dog Democrats" bogging down the momentum in health care reform, and a big filibuster fest in the Senate.
I must have missed it.
All I remember is "Blue Dog Democrats" bogging down the momentum in health care reform, and a big filibuster fest in the Senate.
2
He was never the majority because of the filibuster.
If Mr Obama had laid out the choices between the Republicans and the Democrats as clearly at the beginning of his presidency as he did last night, we may have still had a Democratic Senate, and maybe even a Democratic House. Instead he muddied the waters between Democratic policies and the Republican policies in previous addresses, which gave the Republicans legitimacy despite their no compromise approach and despite massive, general fatigue with Republican policies that put the country into endless wars and a deep, deep recession.
I am glad that Mr Obama has decided to set the stage for the last two years leading into the selection of a new President in 2016 by contrasting the priorities of the two parties. He has done the country a service, and hopefully the voters will pay attention to the intent of each party.
The only priority expressed in the Republican response was the Keystone pipeline. President Obama expressed the stark difference well when he contrasted the Republican obsession with an oil pipeline with the greater needs for more general infrastructure improvement, improvements that will benefit all of America.
Bravo, Mr. Obama. This, to me, was his best speech ever. I appreciated it more than previously touted speeches in which he laid out both sides of policy arguments and social issues. This speech was constructive and laid out a practical recipe for moving forward as a nation, even though it will not pass a staunchly anti-people Republican Congress.
I am glad that Mr Obama has decided to set the stage for the last two years leading into the selection of a new President in 2016 by contrasting the priorities of the two parties. He has done the country a service, and hopefully the voters will pay attention to the intent of each party.
The only priority expressed in the Republican response was the Keystone pipeline. President Obama expressed the stark difference well when he contrasted the Republican obsession with an oil pipeline with the greater needs for more general infrastructure improvement, improvements that will benefit all of America.
Bravo, Mr. Obama. This, to me, was his best speech ever. I appreciated it more than previously touted speeches in which he laid out both sides of policy arguments and social issues. This speech was constructive and laid out a practical recipe for moving forward as a nation, even though it will not pass a staunchly anti-people Republican Congress.
127
Obama assured the public that Stimulus #1 contained vast amounts of infrastructure attention (roads, highways and bridges) - and shovel ready jobs. 2 1/2 years later, he admitted there were "no such thing" as a shovel ready job. And the stimulus contained a net 8% of monies designated for infrastructure attention. Forgetting about Republicans, WHAT has President Obama done to earn this continuing trust in what he says ?
2
Inspiring speech. This is the Obama so many of us voted for---far more, BTW, than voted for the incoming Congress who seems to think they have a mandate.
The speech was a reminder to Democrats that there is a strong platform, one that most people endorse, if Dems will just stand up and articulate it. I believe E. Warren has had a huge impact on forcing the party back to its roots. Kudos. Now how to do it in the age of unlimited funding to Koch approved candidates to complete their John Birch/Ayn Rand vision for us.
The speech was a reminder to Democrats that there is a strong platform, one that most people endorse, if Dems will just stand up and articulate it. I believe E. Warren has had a huge impact on forcing the party back to its roots. Kudos. Now how to do it in the age of unlimited funding to Koch approved candidates to complete their John Birch/Ayn Rand vision for us.
120
Really it took the beating they got in November for us to see the guy people voted for in 2008. Sad that it took him six years to get his sea legs happy that he got them and he is ready to throw the long ball. His party ran away from him like he had the plague for more than four years. Daily beating from the other side of aisle and their minions exposed what many have come to know. The Democratic Party while some of the nicest people you want to know lack the backbones to stand up to the bullies. Always trying to stay above the battle and willing to take the punches cost the dearly in the last election. People respect courage and for the past months the president has shown me he is not down for the count. Some say what’s the use? With congress in the hands of the opposition. Losing the Senate has freed the President to be man he truly is. Throw the Hail Mary pass Mr. President we the people are ready to catch your pass and run to daylight. 2016!
500
Six years to get his sea legs? What was he doing? Cutting bait or saving the economy, and ending two wars?
5
While your metaphor about catching a long pass is attractive, scoring requires more than a quarterback; that requires a team and those of us who voted in November gave the superiority of numbers to the other side. Then as now, president's assumption seems to be that by adjusting tax rates and amending provisions, the government cane redistribute wealth in a more even manner. Conveniently, that approach ignores the changes in technology and the global economy that have rendered the job skills of so many Americans obsolescent. That is the problem that needs to be addressed and was not addressed.
1
Absolutely, Steven. I am ashamed of the wimpy cowardly democrats. I am mulling changing to "unenrolled" here in MA, after years of actively knocking on doors as a proud progressive/liberal. It's bad enough that the GOP has made "liberal" a dirty word, but the "blue dogs" nauseate me.
1
In a political system that requires enormous money to be elected as the leader or member of a legislative body it is both delusional and irrational to think that such a system will serve anyone but the wealthy.
9
"Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other" – Oscar Ameringer (1870-1943).
1
There's a chilling reality is your comment. But this condition is not new. I recommend that you look at the history of "democracy" in the "Mother of Parliaments." From Magna Cart, (with some power moved from king to barons, to the "Glorious Revolution" (with the end of the absolute monarchy and an increase in the authority of the Commons)--hundreds of years, but progress nevertheless. The task is not to create the perfect yesterday, but to chip away and, issue by issue, civilize the country.
Fortunately, the "Jaques" of the French Revolution found a way around that problem.
Paradoxically, since he knows he won’t get passed anything he proposes, Obama now feels more free to push for really positive ideas to reverse our downward spiral. He dares to propose wealth taxes and free tuition. Positive legacy.
If he had a partially cooperative congress, he might compromise more with the conservatives and we’d get only mediocre reform.
Just to spread confusion, there’s the controversial fast track of TPP and the negative effect on jobs. And we need OT work rules, truly universal h/c, higher min wage laws, and paid sick leave for all. Union support is too much to ask.These are all radical here, normal in other democracies, but our voters are kept ignorant of this.
Hello editorial board and NYT, will you please start reporting on efforts to repeal Citizens United? Why is this kept so dark in the media? We just get reports of the fund raising contest.
Even if Obama will influence 2016 by his speech, the strangle hold of big money on the candidates will strictly curtail anything Hillary Clinton might campaign on , and the platform the Dems will fashion.
That’s the real basis for our stuck politics and economy. With more publicly funded elections and limits on donations, the liberal candidates we needfor congress would emerge and run. They'd be enabled to advocate strongly for the middle class, seeing a good chance of not being out-financed by their right wing opponents!
Like with crime, it’s motive, means, opportunity.
If he had a partially cooperative congress, he might compromise more with the conservatives and we’d get only mediocre reform.
Just to spread confusion, there’s the controversial fast track of TPP and the negative effect on jobs. And we need OT work rules, truly universal h/c, higher min wage laws, and paid sick leave for all. Union support is too much to ask.These are all radical here, normal in other democracies, but our voters are kept ignorant of this.
Hello editorial board and NYT, will you please start reporting on efforts to repeal Citizens United? Why is this kept so dark in the media? We just get reports of the fund raising contest.
Even if Obama will influence 2016 by his speech, the strangle hold of big money on the candidates will strictly curtail anything Hillary Clinton might campaign on , and the platform the Dems will fashion.
That’s the real basis for our stuck politics and economy. With more publicly funded elections and limits on donations, the liberal candidates we needfor congress would emerge and run. They'd be enabled to advocate strongly for the middle class, seeing a good chance of not being out-financed by their right wing opponents!
Like with crime, it’s motive, means, opportunity.
9
The Republicans believe that the 2014 election gave them a mandate to pass their agenda which benefits those at the top and puts them in the good graces of the lobbyists . I don’t understand why they believe they have a mandate when only 36.4 percent of those eligible to vote did so. This was the lowest voter turnout in a midterm election since 1942. (washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-20...
I say that Mr. Obama should use every opportunity given to the president by the Constitution to circumvent this obstructionist Congress. I for one have had enough of the Do Nothing Congress whose members are only interested in fund raising for the next election and making friends so that they can earn big bucks on the speaking circuit or after leaving office as lobbyists. The Democrats are just as guilty of this.
I believe that the President stated that those in Congress should try supporting a family on $15,000 a year. I wonder how many of these citizens then have to pay taxes on the $15,000 so that Congress members can earn $174,000 per year, have a great insurance package and all their other perks at tax payer expense. And some of the Congress members have the audacity to criticize those who need government assistance in order to survive. Who are the ones on Welfare?
I say that Mr. Obama should use every opportunity given to the president by the Constitution to circumvent this obstructionist Congress. I for one have had enough of the Do Nothing Congress whose members are only interested in fund raising for the next election and making friends so that they can earn big bucks on the speaking circuit or after leaving office as lobbyists. The Democrats are just as guilty of this.
I believe that the President stated that those in Congress should try supporting a family on $15,000 a year. I wonder how many of these citizens then have to pay taxes on the $15,000 so that Congress members can earn $174,000 per year, have a great insurance package and all their other perks at tax payer expense. And some of the Congress members have the audacity to criticize those who need government assistance in order to survive. Who are the ones on Welfare?
43
Wish I could remember his name, but a young Republican Congressman from Illinois was being interviewed (truthfully, grilled) by Chris Matthews. Chris pretty well had the young guy by his "joni ernsts" during the interview, so the young Congressman's fallback position on taxing the 1% so the middle-class could do better was "income redistribution." No mention, of course, of the "income redistribution" from the middle-class to the rich under trickle-down policies of the last thirty years, but hey, when you are getting "ernsted" you have to have your talking points.
29
I worked 50 years, 60 hours a week to build up a nice nest egg to make sure my children are taken care of... Year after year I paid 40% of my income to the govt... Now if I die the govt wants to take half my nest egg in taxes,25 years of hard work. All of us who have lived the American Dream are watching it turn into a nightmare... Our tax money being spent by a congress that is incompetent, a president, like most presidents before him , who doesn't know how it is to get up at 6 am to work 12 hours a day to make sure his family is secure...the only thing that politicians think about is how they can be reelected... The people of America don't matter
3
Democrats should remember your epithet and use frequently;
"Ernsted" and had the guy by his "joni ernsts". Come on Democrats! Let's continue the Ernsting on Republicans!
"Ernsted" and had the guy by his "joni ernsts". Come on Democrats! Let's continue the Ernsting on Republicans!
1
Actually, Peter, I applaud what you have done. I too worked many years for my family.I don't know what you did for a living. I, and my wife, had to work for someone else. We worked with an implicit promise that we would have a pension. I retired early enough that I receive a pension, but my wife had her's wiped out in midstream in order to be replaced with a 401k with 3% match that will never be worth as much as her pension would have been... The difference between working in a unionized place and non-unionized place, for sure. We too paid high taxes, because at least I, in a unionized environment made good wages with benefits. Both of us are college-educated, yet I made much more in a work environment that didn't require a college education than she did working in an environment where college was preferred. I'm not complaining, by any means. Neither of us had to work twelve hours. I did, many times, but I was paid time-and-a-half to do so. I don't share your pessimism about the American Dream. I don't know what led you on your career path, but I wish you peace in your retirement. You worked, obviously, very hard, and deserve it.
2
The President's tax plans are on the mark with 1 modest correction. For dividends on stocks, there is an element of double taxation. This can be easily corrected by setting the taxable portion of a company's dividends as:
dividends paid x (1- corporate income tax paid/earnings). The added item would be on every company's form 1099 div.
Examples: 1. dividends paid x (1 - 10 million tax/50 million earnings); the taxable dividends would be 80% of the dividends paid to stockholders.
2. dividends paid x (1- 5 million tax/15 million earnings); the taxable dividends would be 66.67% of the dividends paid to stockholders.
These examples show how double taxation is eliminated.
Interest paid on bonds is fully taxed because interest is fully deductible.
dividends paid x (1- corporate income tax paid/earnings). The added item would be on every company's form 1099 div.
Examples: 1. dividends paid x (1 - 10 million tax/50 million earnings); the taxable dividends would be 80% of the dividends paid to stockholders.
2. dividends paid x (1- 5 million tax/15 million earnings); the taxable dividends would be 66.67% of the dividends paid to stockholders.
These examples show how double taxation is eliminated.
Interest paid on bonds is fully taxed because interest is fully deductible.
3
"There is one other thing he must do: Resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise."
Free at last? Free at last? God Almighty, I hope the president is free at last of that self-defeating instinct.
Free at last? Free at last? God Almighty, I hope the president is free at last of that self-defeating instinct.
13
I think what Obama was doing was setting the Repubs for 2016. Over the last few decades the wealthy have gotten numerous tax breaks that have allowed them to hoard much of their money. The trickle down theory proposed by Reagan has been proved to not work. A few years ago Reagan's budget director even said so. With all the tax breaks the "job creators " have gotten,where are the jobs? Obama is focusing the country's attention on the Repubs obvious bias towards the rich in the hope the country will remember in 2016
12
President Obama has more diplomatic & leadership skill & style in one of his pinkies than any ONE member of the GOP, including Senator McCain, who can't seem to resist whining about the President. I the Senator would accept his loss six years ago, stop demeaning himself, and move on. He's played his song long enough. The President has tried repeatedly to work with the GOP but they deny it and all his efforts. There's an old saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink!"
10
In Foreign affairs, Mr Obama wants to negotiate in good Faith with Iran. (No Sanctions when Negotiations are being held). So that we can reach an agreement without going to war.
Cost of Mr Obama Policy: Millions of Dollars( Hotels Rooms and Airplanes tickets to Geneva or Oman)
The GOP plan is to negotiate in bad faith ( vote for more sanctions while negotiating) and If Iranians don't agree on all our terms, bomb them. (Remember Iraq!)
Cost of the GOP Policy: Several Thousand Deaths , Hundreds of Billions of Dollars.
I choose President Obama vision.
Cost of Mr Obama Policy: Millions of Dollars( Hotels Rooms and Airplanes tickets to Geneva or Oman)
The GOP plan is to negotiate in bad faith ( vote for more sanctions while negotiating) and If Iranians don't agree on all our terms, bomb them. (Remember Iraq!)
Cost of the GOP Policy: Several Thousand Deaths , Hundreds of Billions of Dollars.
I choose President Obama vision.
32
Tim, have you notice though in Iran, Obama has gotten further along then the Shrub did with his combative negotiating style. Obama has oddly NOT destroyed the major regional power to offset Iran. Obama's policies in the middle east have been far from perfect but the recent republican record has been a complete and total disaster. Let's not repeat republican mistakes in the region and get bogged down on still more endless wars that only serve to enhance Iranian power in the region.
1
In Education and Infrastructures, Mr Obama wants to give any American kid the chance to realize his dreams via Free Community Colleges. Whether is the young kid who wants to create the new Iphone, or the old worker who wants to go back and learn something to increase his (her) chance to have a better job.
Where would you like to see the first network of internet connected Highways that will be able to communicate with the smart cars of the Future. Obama vision would make it happen here in the US by investing in education , and attracting Bright minds from around the world.
Republican view is that there is no money for it or let's private companies do it. We all know that is not possible in Today's American Capitalism. The CEO's and Managers care more about the bonuses that they get pay each year , not in 20 or 25 years.
It's the role of the Government to make this type of long term Investment.
I chose Mr Obama Vision.
Where would you like to see the first network of internet connected Highways that will be able to communicate with the smart cars of the Future. Obama vision would make it happen here in the US by investing in education , and attracting Bright minds from around the world.
Republican view is that there is no money for it or let's private companies do it. We all know that is not possible in Today's American Capitalism. The CEO's and Managers care more about the bonuses that they get pay each year , not in 20 or 25 years.
It's the role of the Government to make this type of long term Investment.
I chose Mr Obama Vision.
14
President Obama did tonight what Hillary has been thus far unable to do: He made her campaign for the presidency look refreshing, even urgent.
17
Don't you think they'd discussed all that, and that? And that she waits to see the reactions to his SOTUA?
Amazing hubris. After the 2008 election President Obama reminded us "elections have consequences" and yet his State of the Union shows little respect for 2014 election results. Obama's interpretation "too many voters stayed home." Nice having it both ways. As a Chicago Democrat I'm more than said, I'm ashamed.
10
How is that having it both ways? He said "elections have consequences". He didn't say that we have to respect those consequences, such as the consequences of having too many voters staying home.
,
,
After Mr Obama speech, there are two visions for America and we all have to decide which one to choose.
Mr Obama Vision: Let's give Tax cuts to the Middle class , money that will be used to spent directly in the Economy. Creating millions of jobs, While at the same time giving every American the chance to have an affordable health Insurance. Making sure that Safety nets are nets are there for the Seniors and those who loose their jobs.
The GOP wants to give more Tax cuts to the Rich so that they can spend it in Wall St on Products that even Bankers don't understand , while making sure that Wall St get bail out in case things go wrong (Amendment HR992). Crashing the World Economy, sending millions into Poverty.
I choose President Obama vision.
Mr Obama Vision: Let's give Tax cuts to the Middle class , money that will be used to spent directly in the Economy. Creating millions of jobs, While at the same time giving every American the chance to have an affordable health Insurance. Making sure that Safety nets are nets are there for the Seniors and those who loose their jobs.
The GOP wants to give more Tax cuts to the Rich so that they can spend it in Wall St on Products that even Bankers don't understand , while making sure that Wall St get bail out in case things go wrong (Amendment HR992). Crashing the World Economy, sending millions into Poverty.
I choose President Obama vision.
21
No matter what the President said, Senator Ernst laid out a reasonable course.
The Keystone Pipeline is going to be like the WPA and give jobs to millions of unemployed Americans. The Republicans are going to get rid of tax deductions, I mean "loopholes." Of course, she can't tell us which ones. And, finally, the President has too much power but he's responsible for not preventing terrorist attacks in France, Canada, and Britain.
She probably should have just gone on TV and castrated another hog. It would have made more sense than what she said.
The Keystone Pipeline is going to be like the WPA and give jobs to millions of unemployed Americans. The Republicans are going to get rid of tax deductions, I mean "loopholes." Of course, she can't tell us which ones. And, finally, the President has too much power but he's responsible for not preventing terrorist attacks in France, Canada, and Britain.
She probably should have just gone on TV and castrated another hog. It would have made more sense than what she said.
46
Yes, but don't forget that meaningless gabble is the essential Republican language. That means that if there is any intelligent Republican, that person is forced to speak nonsense no matter what. (Not that I'm suggesting Senator Ernst has either intelligence nor depth of character. . .)
1
the "new republican congress" is already more of the same, only more so. disrespecting the president during the state of the union demonstrates the below grade consideration they have for all things american. i have nothing but contempt for these "new" republicans. on the contrary, i couldn't be more proud and honored for our president as he pushes OUR agenda forward.
15
While getting a haircut today, my hair stylist told me she can only work part-time as she and her husband cannot afford the cost of day care. She has searched and found no affordable care options in our community. As a professional I paid thousands for quality childcare. My daughter has done the same in order to keep working. We need to provide working mothers with affordable childcare as soon as possible.
51
Always nice to see President Obama - a man of vision, ideas, fairness and common decency - stand up wholeheartedly for Americans in the face of all those junkyard GOP dogs howling 'No' from morning until night as they guard the plantation owner's estate to earn their dog biscuits.
President Obama - the only adult in the room, as usual.
President Obama - the only adult in the room, as usual.
368
A great comment. Thanks.
3
Apparently you must have slept through the 2014 election. Obama, his party and his philosophy got stomped.
3
@Socrates: The only adult in the room? You missed the shots of Senator Warren from Massachusetts apparently.
1
I don't agree with "combative".
I heard a sadness, wistfulness, and a plaintiveness rarely heard from Obama. I heard hushed tones and, I felt his suffering. Obama was personally more open and at times his speech was a confession. There was a sadness hearing him recall, in his hushed tones, his own famous "Red America and Blue America". Recalling his better self and our unachieved potential.
For a few moments, the State of the Union felt like a church, a confessional for all politicians, and a plaintiff, even desperate call by Obama to the waning humanity in politicians. Please! Please! Be human, please?
He looked exhausted, so much older, and smiled much less on his way out. I can't help but feel a sadness for him.
I heard a sadness, wistfulness, and a plaintiveness rarely heard from Obama. I heard hushed tones and, I felt his suffering. Obama was personally more open and at times his speech was a confession. There was a sadness hearing him recall, in his hushed tones, his own famous "Red America and Blue America". Recalling his better self and our unachieved potential.
For a few moments, the State of the Union felt like a church, a confessional for all politicians, and a plaintiff, even desperate call by Obama to the waning humanity in politicians. Please! Please! Be human, please?
He looked exhausted, so much older, and smiled much less on his way out. I can't help but feel a sadness for him.
3
What a joke.
In Obama’s latest “tax the rich” plan he raises $320Billion over 10 years. So, $32Billion/year.
Peanuts in the Federal Reserve $Trillion Dollar reality. Where the Fed Balance Sheet has gone up $8Trillion dollars during Obama’s 6 year presidency.
Obama has borrowed and spent $8Trillion.
And tonight, in the SOTU, this $32Blllion “tax on the rich” next year, will save us?
In Obama’s latest “tax the rich” plan he raises $320Billion over 10 years. So, $32Billion/year.
Peanuts in the Federal Reserve $Trillion Dollar reality. Where the Fed Balance Sheet has gone up $8Trillion dollars during Obama’s 6 year presidency.
Obama has borrowed and spent $8Trillion.
And tonight, in the SOTU, this $32Blllion “tax on the rich” next year, will save us?
9
"Taxing the rich" polls well. It's hard to make "income inequality" your central theme when raising the minimum wage is your only tool. You need to have several in your toolbox.
Politically, they are still navigating their way around the problem that class warfare does not poll well. And never mind that they won't significantly change income distribution.
Politically, they are still navigating their way around the problem that class warfare does not poll well. And never mind that they won't significantly change income distribution.
Where are you getting your figures?
2
Calling the impassioned, concise, articulate speech the President delivered "combative" seems merely to be keying off what the Editorial Board calls the "less than promising...circumstances" facing him. In fact the President acknowledged them several times offhandedly, and then transcended them, most notably during the laughter that followed the statement "I have no more campaigns to run", when he winked at the Republican aisle and said, "I know, because I won both of 'em", which seemed to sum up his response to the incessant questions from the the other side about his relevance, his capabilities, and of course his legitimacy. Under any circumstances the President's speech was buoyant and compassionate, as well as persuasive, and reasoned. He managed that and more without being "combative."
16
What's wrong with being combative, given the circumstances of our country?
2
The president might as well be talking to a wall. Reminds me of the 1850's.
3
Pres. Obama's SOTU was clearly aimed at 2016, since the McConnell/Boehner congress is another do-nothing outfit. Sec. Clinton will profit by taking up these middle class issues and beat Republicans about the heads and shoulders with them. Sen. Warren needs to keep Sec. Clinton aware of what people really care about, and Pres. Obama laid those out clearly.
3
I must have watched a different speech.
Seemed like politics as usual to me.
We are 6 years in with this guy, you know.
There's more debt, and more dead, and the only parties that benefited are the banks and the 1%.
This is a Potemkin "recovery" - and nothing more.
Seemed like politics as usual to me.
We are 6 years in with this guy, you know.
There's more debt, and more dead, and the only parties that benefited are the banks and the 1%.
This is a Potemkin "recovery" - and nothing more.
10
Yes, and the president "pivoted" to Cuba, his big foreign policy accomplishment. Meanwhile, the Middle East is being overrun by Islamic extremists, which he dare not name.
4
Not that something will get done in the next two years but it looks like we're about to have some fun. Main stream Republicans will be trying to present themselves as those about to govern, Tea Partiers as those about to revolt (again) and the next Democratic candidate will have a do-absolutely-nothing congress to run against (with Obama's help at the bully pulpit).
3
"Outgunned..."? I think not. The decisive "triumph" of the midterms was a faint squeak, funded by the 1% and executed by a literal one percent of the electorate, the plurality in a minority vote that selected 6 Republican Senators in the least populated states. It was no message, and as far from a mandate as an election can get. Obama is and will remain the thunderous "gun" shaping the agenda and framing the argument. The squabbling infants in Congress can do their obstructive best, but we the people expect nothing from them, and are sure they won't disappoint.
9
Many of the President’s supporters (I am not one of them) have lauded his leadership as of late, and I do not blame them. The November election opened new opportunities for his style of governing, and he has taken full advantage. Good for him.
And last night’s speech was another occasion to lead as he has recently, to more applaud from supporters. It was perhaps the last great moment of his remarkable political career.
I’ve always liked President Obama as a person, but have always been disappointed, and at times confounded by his governing. (The recent Paris demonstration, for example; an opportunity missed.)
So it pains me to write this, but last night’s speech was just the wrong speech for the wrong night. Just too many of the same pious platitudes we now are so familiar with. All of which at this point of his presidency now ring so hollow.
When he is no longer president, I wish President Obama, and his wonderful wife and family well, but I will not miss him.
And last night’s speech was another occasion to lead as he has recently, to more applaud from supporters. It was perhaps the last great moment of his remarkable political career.
I’ve always liked President Obama as a person, but have always been disappointed, and at times confounded by his governing. (The recent Paris demonstration, for example; an opportunity missed.)
So it pains me to write this, but last night’s speech was just the wrong speech for the wrong night. Just too many of the same pious platitudes we now are so familiar with. All of which at this point of his presidency now ring so hollow.
When he is no longer president, I wish President Obama, and his wonderful wife and family well, but I will not miss him.
4
Very good.
The editorial staff of the NYT is very normal and expects what any normal, well-informed American would expect.
Why don't you expect this from your opinion writers?
The editorial staff of the NYT is very normal and expects what any normal, well-informed American would expect.
Why don't you expect this from your opinion writers?
2
I watched "The Flash" and "Justified" tonight, rather listen to a guy who gave away the farm in not getting rid of the Bush tax cuts, or immediately stopping the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or get the minimum wage adjusted, or get Galss/Steagal put back to protect us. He was just too busy, or scared or just incompetent. US has had 6 years of Hell and with little outlook of improvement until at least 2016 when Hillary and a more competent group gets installed. The only reason the economy is improving is the baby boomers have given their jobs to the next generation, we are getting our social security and medicare money and spending it, along with pensions and 401(k)s. Thanks for nothing. A pox on both your houses.
1
Congress appears to have worked itself into a corner. At this point in time, they are so disorganized that the only unity they possess is in objecting to anything that might seem like a gain for the President. This means that they will (and they already have) worked against their own interests. They have refused to govern even when they could get their own bills passed - just to spite the President. This is a very sick Congress. The likes of McConnell, Boehner and Cruz would do well to reflect on the fact that after 2016 it is President Obama who will be remembered for the preceding 8 year period: for having shut down two wars, for finally getting Osama bin Laden, for rescuing the auto industry, for rescuing the nation from financial disaster and pushing the employment figures back up, for finally ensuring healthcare coverage for all Americans, for restoring relations with Cuba and for getting Iran back to the talks table, for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and for much more... It is President Obama's name that will be associated with this progress.
The irascible Eric Cantor is already gone and forgotten. McConnell, Boehner and Cruz will follow into obscurity. They could have done better, but they will not be remembered except for their abominable treatment of our President.
The irascible Eric Cantor is already gone and forgotten. McConnell, Boehner and Cruz will follow into obscurity. They could have done better, but they will not be remembered except for their abominable treatment of our President.
20
Outgunned? Jesus, you would never be a Country with that attitude America. Us Empire Loyalists would never have left the White House if it was that easy.
The worst of Europe has finally caught up. Outside of Mars, there is no where to displace the people with uncomfortable attitudes.
So it is upon us. We either get along or let China show how things are done. They tend to lead with tanks.
The worst of Europe has finally caught up. Outside of Mars, there is no where to displace the people with uncomfortable attitudes.
So it is upon us. We either get along or let China show how things are done. They tend to lead with tanks.
Judging from the John Boehner squirm index, I'd say the President hit one out of the park. Boehner looked like he was having exploratory surgery without any anesthetic.
This was the beginning of some long needed salesmanship. Finally! At least this time, the President had lots of good economic data to back him up.
We all know that the Republicans are going to hammer away with the tired tax and spend rhetoric. The President needs to understand the fundamentals of marketing to overcome it. The reason people buy things is because the purchase makes them feel good about themselves. Any talk of redistribution fails that requirement. He needs to sell his plans to the people not as taking from the super rich, but that the super rich have been taking from the middle class for over 30 years and it's high time that stopped. The middle class has already earned these benefits. He needs to present the enormous wealth that has been created over the last 15 years and how none of it trickled down to them. Redistribution is viewed by many as communism and unpatriotic. People want to believe that those that earned it deserve to keep it. They don't want to entertain the thought that those earnings came at their expense because that makes them feel like suckers, or fools.
Most likely, none of his proposals will go anywhere. At least he can set the stage for 2016 and expose the GOP for what it is in the process. It was a very good speech.
This was the beginning of some long needed salesmanship. Finally! At least this time, the President had lots of good economic data to back him up.
We all know that the Republicans are going to hammer away with the tired tax and spend rhetoric. The President needs to understand the fundamentals of marketing to overcome it. The reason people buy things is because the purchase makes them feel good about themselves. Any talk of redistribution fails that requirement. He needs to sell his plans to the people not as taking from the super rich, but that the super rich have been taking from the middle class for over 30 years and it's high time that stopped. The middle class has already earned these benefits. He needs to present the enormous wealth that has been created over the last 15 years and how none of it trickled down to them. Redistribution is viewed by many as communism and unpatriotic. People want to believe that those that earned it deserve to keep it. They don't want to entertain the thought that those earnings came at their expense because that makes them feel like suckers, or fools.
Most likely, none of his proposals will go anywhere. At least he can set the stage for 2016 and expose the GOP for what it is in the process. It was a very good speech.
11
'....but trade-offs amounting to Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable'? The NYT's editorial board needs to recognize and accept the reality of the past election. Republican legislative triumphs is EXACTLY what the citizens expect. To argue otherwise shows extreme prejudice and bias, or possibly a lack of reality.
5
I am so proud of this President who has risen up after being "shellacked" by the pathetically small number of right wingers who bothered to show up and vote in the midterms.
This President will not be humiliated, as Boehner and McConnell and others have clearly been trying to do.
This President will have the Democrats behind him, as they were not in the midterms.
This President will set the stage and start the conversation for 2016.
By then the American people will no longer put up with the rich getting richer, the middle class stagnating, and the poor losing desperately needed aid.
Among other things, President Obama is a great teacher. He is also a great study in resiliency.
This President will not be humiliated, as Boehner and McConnell and others have clearly been trying to do.
This President will have the Democrats behind him, as they were not in the midterms.
This President will set the stage and start the conversation for 2016.
By then the American people will no longer put up with the rich getting richer, the middle class stagnating, and the poor losing desperately needed aid.
Among other things, President Obama is a great teacher. He is also a great study in resiliency.
18
Where was this in 2008? We could have a different and better country, but this guy wasted his chance. At this point, it's just posturing.
6
President Obama asked America to give witness to his call to Congress to help him address problems as well as to redress grievances that continue to hold us hostage to antiquated ideas and unproductive ways. He knows that his forward-leaning agenda probably has little chance of success given the composition of this edition of Congress. President Obama cast an unflattering light on a reactionary Congressional leadership that is beholden to wealth, privilege, and exclusive special interests. Speaker Boehner and the Senate's Majority Leader, Mr. McConnell, find every excuse to say "no" to a reasonable tax increase on the .0001% and corporations to pay for America's future. We will be unable to compete in a global economy with a marginal, unskilled workforce. We can only hope that our president will continue to advocate for ordinary Americans because Congress, as presently constituted, will not. They complain all the day long about costly government but they have no problems taking money from the shadows. At the least, President Obama has drawn up the boundaries for 2016 by calling out a reluctant Congress to work with him. "We can do this!" he repeated. They were there in the House chamber. Were they listening?
17
Maybe outgunned but not out matched.Given the drubbing of less than 70 days ago he excelled tonight. Good job Mr. President. You have come back from the edfe.... http://lstrn.us/1CpDxkF
9
This might have been President Obama’s best State of the Union speech. He was cocky, combative and confident – appearing even more so, because behind him there was that ridiculously despondent look on Speaker Boehner’s face throughout the address.
But ultimately the challenge is still Obama’s – will his eloquent plea towards the end of his speech, recalling an inspiring patriotic theme from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, get a Republican Congress to pass any of his initiatives?
Fortunately for the president, he does not have much to lose as much of his domestic, economic and foreign policy legacy has already been baked. It’s the Republicans, who now control both chambers in Congress for the first time during the Obama presidency that need to prove they can actually pass bills that the president will sign into law.
But ultimately the challenge is still Obama’s – will his eloquent plea towards the end of his speech, recalling an inspiring patriotic theme from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, get a Republican Congress to pass any of his initiatives?
Fortunately for the president, he does not have much to lose as much of his domestic, economic and foreign policy legacy has already been baked. It’s the Republicans, who now control both chambers in Congress for the first time during the Obama presidency that need to prove they can actually pass bills that the president will sign into law.
279
Boehner's face looked as if he knew that had Obama been giving this speech during the election cycle he might not be sitting in his big chair.
I find it amusing that the Democrat base is saying this was Obama's best State of the Union speech. In reality, the speech was somewhat surreal. Claiming we have turned the page on the economy, terrorism and so on when people can't get more than a part-time job at McDonalds and ISIS, Boko Haram, and Al Qaeda are stronger than ever and growing rapidly.
1
A masterful and inspiring address, not to a GOP dominated congress but to the entire nation and world. The GOP cannot easily naysay any of his proposals.
33
Obama still seems to have something left in him for the next two years. As his approval rating inches higher, he will have the opportunity to leverage it to protect his achievements and advance his agenda. He will have to make some compromises, but as usual, will likely do so with careful consideration of their long-term impact in mind. America really lucked out to be able to elect Obama as the President during this difficult time. It will likely be hard to find a better President for some time to come.
593
Surprisingly Mr. Obama seemed undismayed, unfatigued by all he's endured over his term. Washington State is a good place to get your start- I know. JG-
The Wall Street banksters are pleased.
"America really lucked out..."
OMG you are kidding, right?
OMG you are kidding, right?
2
Obama did well to bring up the issue of inequality in his speech. We can now watch what will happen over the next 2 years - probably nothing, since the Republicans will block any efforts to help any but the 1%.
But in 2016, the voters will then decide whether they want to allow the Republicans to stay in control and continue to allow only the most wealthy to get even richer, or whether they want to elect a party that will help the other 99%.
But in 2016, the voters will then decide whether they want to allow the Republicans to stay in control and continue to allow only the most wealthy to get even richer, or whether they want to elect a party that will help the other 99%.
10
Which party do you think cares about the other 99%?
Certainly not the Democrats who bow at the alter of Wall Street (you think Schumer is going to support a tax on the banks?) or the public teacher unions (you think Democrats care about education of children -- look at the unions who fund them) or the uneducated and minorities who will compete against Mr. Obama's 12 million illegal aliens.
The middle class will have to succeed despite both parties.
Certainly not the Democrats who bow at the alter of Wall Street (you think Schumer is going to support a tax on the banks?) or the public teacher unions (you think Democrats care about education of children -- look at the unions who fund them) or the uneducated and minorities who will compete against Mr. Obama's 12 million illegal aliens.
The middle class will have to succeed despite both parties.
5
This commentary is delusional.
The world has outrun Obama's limited appreciation for what is going on in it.
As for calling for Obama to eschew compromise to achieve his best ambitions, well, that is the ultimate expression of elitism. Don't pay any attention whatsoever to what the voters said in November 2014. Follow your instincts. After all, that is why we wanted you to be elected in the first place.
I'd like to puke.
The world has outrun Obama's limited appreciation for what is going on in it.
As for calling for Obama to eschew compromise to achieve his best ambitions, well, that is the ultimate expression of elitism. Don't pay any attention whatsoever to what the voters said in November 2014. Follow your instincts. After all, that is why we wanted you to be elected in the first place.
I'd like to puke.
5
He set the tone. He's not lying down. We should be glad. Personally I'm grateful for his fighting spirit, given what he's facing. He's asking, almost begging, for a good fight. A good agenda, I don't think they (the Republican congress) have the true grit for. Oh they'll fight, they'll claim, they'll gloat because of their dominance, but a good fight, I'd bet on it that it won't be had. It's going to be a frustrating two years, and probably an annoying media circus (with presidential election's soon enough down the pike).
4
The Editorial Board may choose to deify Obama but let's try not to rewrite history in the process of doing so. Consider the following quote: "His task will be to defend these initiatives from almost certain congressional attack, wielding his veto pen ... much as President Bill Clinton found himself doing after Newt Gingrich and his Republican majority took over the House in 1995."
Yes, both Obama and Bill Clinton faced a Rebublican Congress but how they dealt with the other side of the aisle could not have been more different. After the 1994 Republican landslide, Obama worked with Gingrich to accomplish bi-partisan objectives such as NAFTA, "ending welfare as we know it" and balanced the budget.
By contrast, Obama's news conference after the Republicans won back Congress in 2014 could not have been more dismissive. He claimed to not only hear those who voted (mostly against his policies) but also to hear those who did not vote. Obama's legislative accomplishments have almost all been entirely partisan including jamming Obamacare down people's throats. In fact, in the 3 areas on which Bill Clinton negotiated with Gingrich in the 1990's (free trade, welfare reform and balancing budget), Obama has backtracked on all 3. On Free Trade, he can't get TPP past his own liberal base. On welfare reform, Obama issued States wavier to get around the work requirement in welfare. And far from balancing the budget, Obama is responsible for 5 of the largest deficits in history.
Yes, both Obama and Bill Clinton faced a Rebublican Congress but how they dealt with the other side of the aisle could not have been more different. After the 1994 Republican landslide, Obama worked with Gingrich to accomplish bi-partisan objectives such as NAFTA, "ending welfare as we know it" and balanced the budget.
By contrast, Obama's news conference after the Republicans won back Congress in 2014 could not have been more dismissive. He claimed to not only hear those who voted (mostly against his policies) but also to hear those who did not vote. Obama's legislative accomplishments have almost all been entirely partisan including jamming Obamacare down people's throats. In fact, in the 3 areas on which Bill Clinton negotiated with Gingrich in the 1990's (free trade, welfare reform and balancing budget), Obama has backtracked on all 3. On Free Trade, he can't get TPP past his own liberal base. On welfare reform, Obama issued States wavier to get around the work requirement in welfare. And far from balancing the budget, Obama is responsible for 5 of the largest deficits in history.
5
It seems that you, Alan, and AACNY are reading and writing from the same script. Is it on some right wing blog?
3
We obviously have an economy where all the power is in the hands of concentrated money.
9
It was a strong speech, emphasizing common sense and reachable goals for this country. Goals and initiatives that extend and preserve fairness -- and some could say behavior and programs becoming of America. Bravo, Mr. President. We're behind you.
118
The goals he spoke of are not doable, and he is among the lamest of the lame ducks. He betrayed his base and America when it counted most in 2009, and the Corporations have the entire American Economy. in which to run wild. If Obama actually had the power to to accomplish his stated "goals," he would remain mum about them and continue to shift to the right.
2
Thanks for this editorial, Editorial Board. Your analysis of the President's SOTU speech is on the mark - in all ways, down to the last paragraph.
The Democrats lost big last November by waging an atrocious campaign - an unforgivable faux pas: timid in tone,costly in seats lost, and amateurish in execution. This speech by the president is in part, a boost for his party which they badly need. iI is also re-starting the conversation by directly stating Democratic principles to help alleviate the massive inequality that exists in America today, and proposing taxation on the wealthiest to pay for it. It won't fly - not in this congress, but he hardly expects it to - as you correctly note, this is for 2016 and beyond.
The energy and optimism, the verve and decisiveness even with the likelihood of two years of torrid gridlock and battles ahead of him, is stimulating and encouraging. And I totally agree - wield the veto pen, avoid false compromises.
The Democrats lost big last November by waging an atrocious campaign - an unforgivable faux pas: timid in tone,costly in seats lost, and amateurish in execution. This speech by the president is in part, a boost for his party which they badly need. iI is also re-starting the conversation by directly stating Democratic principles to help alleviate the massive inequality that exists in America today, and proposing taxation on the wealthiest to pay for it. It won't fly - not in this congress, but he hardly expects it to - as you correctly note, this is for 2016 and beyond.
The energy and optimism, the verve and decisiveness even with the likelihood of two years of torrid gridlock and battles ahead of him, is stimulating and encouraging. And I totally agree - wield the veto pen, avoid false compromises.
243
“If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments – but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.”
Good to see and hear the President, vigorous, committed and celebrating jobs in America.
“If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments – but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.”
Good to see and hear the President, vigorous, committed and celebrating jobs in America.
“If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments – but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.”
223
The Republicans response to that: "No".
15
Pretty rich coming from a president whose first response to a challenge is often to resort to the personal denigration of his challengers. And then there is his rather dubious response to the Keystone Pipeline. Hard to call his response "worthy" of his great office.
No, the president tried, once again, to make his leadership problems the fault of someone else. Of course, if he were able to take responsibility, we wouldn't have had 6 years of persistent gridlock.
No, the president tried, once again, to make his leadership problems the fault of someone else. Of course, if he were able to take responsibility, we wouldn't have had 6 years of persistent gridlock.
3
AACNY - how can you possibly believe the stuff you write? Sen. McConnell said on day 1 of Obama's presidency he wanted to make President Obama a one term president which meant they would blame him for everything (and some things made up) and they would cooperate with nothing.
The pipeline is a lowbrow idea that will do nothing for this nation's economy and it's suggestion was another way to try and make the president look bad. Is the Keystone Pipeline really the best you guys have to offer? Really?
The pipeline is a lowbrow idea that will do nothing for this nation's economy and it's suggestion was another way to try and make the president look bad. Is the Keystone Pipeline really the best you guys have to offer? Really?
6
Mr. obama has no idea how to work with members of the other party. He loves to demonize them and then criticize them for not agreeing with him. The majority of people who voted in November voted for Republicans. Maybe he ought to compromise a bit....
22
Compromise how? Lower taxes for the rich? Fewer services for the middle class? Less money spent to get the poor out of poverty? Is that what YOU voted for?
334
Actually, in total nationwide there were about 1 million more votes for Congressional Democrats than for Republicans.
228
No, he has done nothing for years but try to work with the other side, but he has faced fanatical, nihilistic opposition. And don't pull that "majority" nonsense ... Republicans get more seats from a combination of rural states and from Gerrymandered districts. In 2010, Democrats outpolled Republicans by over a million votes nationally in Congressional seats, yet they "lost" the House. Then, after redistricting by Republican states, in an off year with millions fewer voting, they snagged more seats.
That is not Democracy. It's a rigged system that disadvantages urban voters.
President Obama was elected with strong support in his two elections and he deserves to be respected as the only person in the land elected by the entire country.
That is not Democracy. It's a rigged system that disadvantages urban voters.
President Obama was elected with strong support in his two elections and he deserves to be respected as the only person in the land elected by the entire country.
373
"Mr. Obama did highlight some potential areas of collaboration with Republicans. He called on Congress to approve...the granting of authority to strike trade deals...." (from the article on the front page)
On trade policy, President Obama is wrong to continue promoting more of the same. As a result of NAFTA, CAFTA, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, the U.S. has lost tens of thousands of factories and millions of good-paying jobs. The TPP is NAFTA on steroids. It would make income and wealth inequality WORSE.
The TPP will benefit corporate America and (1) weaken health, food safety, labor, environmental, and financial regulations, (2) increase drug prices and limit access to generic drugs, (3) undermine internet freedom, and (4) increase the outsourcing of jobs.
If this agreement were a good deal the Obama administration would not be pushing for fast track authority. And it would not be negotiated in secret, keeping Congress and the public in the dark, while allowing lobbyists to write corporate-friendly policy.
The TPP is about much more than trade. Foreign tribunals will give multinational corporations the right to sue a government if domestic laws reduce their future profits.
For more on the TPP, go to http://www.citizen.org/TPP
On trade policy, President Obama is wrong to continue promoting more of the same. As a result of NAFTA, CAFTA, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, the U.S. has lost tens of thousands of factories and millions of good-paying jobs. The TPP is NAFTA on steroids. It would make income and wealth inequality WORSE.
The TPP will benefit corporate America and (1) weaken health, food safety, labor, environmental, and financial regulations, (2) increase drug prices and limit access to generic drugs, (3) undermine internet freedom, and (4) increase the outsourcing of jobs.
If this agreement were a good deal the Obama administration would not be pushing for fast track authority. And it would not be negotiated in secret, keeping Congress and the public in the dark, while allowing lobbyists to write corporate-friendly policy.
The TPP is about much more than trade. Foreign tribunals will give multinational corporations the right to sue a government if domestic laws reduce their future profits.
For more on the TPP, go to http://www.citizen.org/TPP
55
I agree, RLS, and disagree with our President on this and all trade agreements. They have contributed to the decline of manufacturing and jobs in our country.
3
I saw Repubs sit on their hands,
Few fans in the other side's stands,
Bipartisan bunch?
I do have a hunch
There'll be lots of hostile demands.
Maybe his call appeals to some,
But like the Spirits will they come?
I'm dubious, I doubt it,
And we'll be without it,
'Til both Chambers become our plum!
Few fans in the other side's stands,
Bipartisan bunch?
I do have a hunch
There'll be lots of hostile demands.
Maybe his call appeals to some,
But like the Spirits will they come?
I'm dubious, I doubt it,
And we'll be without it,
'Til both Chambers become our plum!
83
"a President Outgunned in Congress Is Still Combative"
The same can be said for the editorial board?
Actually I like some of his proposals, but given that the country has clearly voted against him he is showing something that we in New York have a word for, that word is chutzpah.
But I do wish he takes back his proposal to legalize five million undocumented immigrants because the last thing we need is millions of people graduating from free community colleges only to find that an immigrant has taken the job which they were hoping for.
The same can be said for the editorial board?
Actually I like some of his proposals, but given that the country has clearly voted against him he is showing something that we in New York have a word for, that word is chutzpah.
But I do wish he takes back his proposal to legalize five million undocumented immigrants because the last thing we need is millions of people graduating from free community colleges only to find that an immigrant has taken the job which they were hoping for.
1
Great poem!
4
Didn't Republicans get a lot more votes than Dems the last time around?
But they should lay down for a lame duck Dem?
Huh??
But they should lay down for a lame duck Dem?
Huh??
6
Why do liberals not understand, unlike Boehner and conservatives?