State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

Well. Long story short, I didn't watch it.

Anything worth hearing? More hot air? More promises not being fulfilled? (Yeah, I'm swaying on that side of the fence now)

What'd you think about it if you watched?

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

Typical Obama. Good speech, makes you feel energized, makes you feel hopeful that things will improve. All that warm and fuzzy stuff.

At this point just show me the results or hit the road in 2012, I'm unfazed by the cheerleading.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

Yeah I watched it. Man that guy loves the sound of his own voice. It was a long speech. I was really hoping to hear any indication that he was going to pare down his agenda somewhat, and I know many in both parties were hoping the same thing. Not so much. He doesn't appear to backing off anything. Government is trying to do way too much. Actually, Governor McDonnell's response said just that (at least we didn't hear from Bobby Jindal tonight).

Obama said he refuses to quit. I take that as meaning he believes his agenda on inauguration day is still precisely the agenda that is best for America. I don't agree.

I guess I like his idea of a spending freeze (a certain senator from Arizona suggested the same thing a little over a year ago), but hearing Obama warn about the danger of incurring more debt was comical, if not hypocritical.

He also mentioned "the previous 8 years" a few times in a negative light. Stop it Obama. Just stop. Bush has been gone for over a year. It's your time now. Pointing fingers cheapens your presidency.

As usual, the rhetoric doesn't come close to matching the actions.

And on a side note, Greta Van Sustren looks downright frightening. :)

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

I was highly amused by the "that's how budgeting works [you morons]" line. Let's hope he doesn't hit the road...not that there is any meaningful chance of that happening.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=GMScud;658715]Yeah I watched it. Man that guy loves the sound of his own voice. It was a long speech. I was really hoping to hear any indication that he was going to pare down his agenda somewhat, and I know many in both parties were hoping the same thing. Not so much. He doesn't appear to backing off anything. Government is trying to do way too much. Actually, Governor McDonnell's response said just that (at least we didn't hear from Bobby Jindal tonight).

Obama said he refuses to quit. I take that as meaning he believes his agenda on inauguration day is still precisely the agenda that is best for America. I don't agree.

I guess I like his idea of a spending freeze (a certain senator from Arizona suggested the same thing a little over a year ago), but hearing Obama warn about the danger of incurring more debt was comical, if not hypocritical.

He also mentioned "the previous 8 years" a few times in a negative light. Stop it Obama. Just stop. Bush has been gone for over a year. It's your time now. Pointing fingers cheapens your presidency.
[B]
And on a side note, Greta Van Sustren looks downright frightening[/B]. :)[/quote]

Crypt keeper's long lost sister.

Well I'm assuming that if he doesn't wanna incur more debt, he's going to lop off some things on that Health Care bill.

And I agree about backtracking to the Bush admin again. We all know Bush dropped the ball. Time to move on and look ahead to what we can do over the next 3 years.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

The SOB lectured the SUPREME COURT. What a dumb ass! He said he'd also use an executive order to circumvent THE SENATE. Apart from that it was a George B Obama Rino / Progressive BS speech. The only good thing he said, that I like, is that all of the [U]combat[/U] troops are going to leave Iraq. Then I realized he said [U]combat[/U] troops, and not [U]all [/U]troops.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

His bit about re-enforcing his ongoing commitment to earmark reform was also hilarious. Umm, didn't he sign a stimulus package with nearly 9,000 earmarks in it?

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

Elections have consequences, I don't know how anyone can get upset at Obama for pursuing the agenda he believes in. Disagree with it, fine, but don't act surprised that he's not changing his message at the first sign of trouble.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

Facts are a damn nuisance when they are not on your side. He took responsibility for the trillion he added to the deficit, you want him to take the blame for the shitty budget left to him aswell? GTFOOH.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;658718]The SOB lectured the SUPREME COURT. What a dumb ass! He said he'd also use an executive order to circumvent THE SENATE. Apart from that it was a George B Obama Rino / Progressive BS speech. The only good thing he said, that I like, is that all of the [U]combat[/U] troops are going to leave Iraq. Then I realized he said [U]combat[/U] troops, and not [U]all [/U]troops.[/quote]


Alito shaking his head and saying "that's not true" was my second fav moment. It's a place the needed to be gone. As for the bypassing the Senate, can you blame him? Six Republicans co-sponsored the comission bill and then voted against. There is no money in reducing the deficit.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=saden1;658721]Facts are a damn nuisance when they are not on your side. He took responsibility for the trillion he added to the deficit, you want him to take the blame for the shitty budget left to him aswell? GTFOOH.[/quote]

Didn't he quadruple national debt?

IMO the whole thing was partisan, defensive, and repetitive - except for the spending freeze (which won't take effect for another year so he can rack up more exponential debt by expanding government even further). I think he's out of touch with his own policies in some areas.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said

Obama lied on national television. McCain / Feingold isn't that old. They may be but the law isn't.

I don't remember the Democrats complaining when the Chinese nationals (aka the ChiComs) were giving campaign money to the Clintons and Gore.

I thought I hated Bush, then we got Clinton. I thought no one could screw up bigger than Clinton, then we got Dumb-ass the younger. I thought no one, absolutely no one could be a bigger screw up than W. Now we have this guy, a guy who gets up and lies on national television.

It's been a Democrat Congress since 2006. Yeah remember, dumb-ass W destroyed the Republican party like Mao-bama is destroying the Democrat party. Democrats can't wash their hands of this.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=saden1;658724][B]Alito shaking his head and saying "that's not true" was my second fav moment.[/B] It's a place the needed to be gone. As for the bypassing the Senate, can you blame him? Six Republicans co-sponsored the comission bill and then voted against. There is no money in reducing the deficit.[/quote]

A favorite moment? So either Alito or Obama is full of shit. Either way that's not good for America. The executive branch talking smack to the judicial on the biggest possible stage is a BAD thing.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=djnemo65;658720]Elections have consequences, I don't know how anyone can get upset at Obama for pursuing the agenda he believes in. Disagree with it, fine, but don't act surprised that he's not changing his message at the first sign of trouble.[/quote]

I'm not suggesting he hit the reset button. But not backing down at all off your initial agenda after a very poor first year is indicative of the arrogance of this administration. (cough *Rahm Emanuel* cough)

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=GMScud;658727]Didn't he quadruple national debt?

IMO the whole thing was partisan, defensive, and repetitive - except for the spending freeze (which won't take effect for another year so he can rack up more exponential debt by expanding government even further). I think he's out of touch with his own policies in some areas.[/quote]

Since Schneed10 is a budget expert I would love to hear him address your "didn't he quadruple national debt" question.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=GMScud;658729]A favorite moment? So either Alito or Obama is full of shit. Either way that's not good for America. The executive branch talking smack to the judicial on the biggest possible stage is a BAD thing.[/quote]

They disagree all the time through amicus briefs and through the media, I don't see why politely disagreeing with the ruling "on the biggest possible stage" is a bad thing.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=GMScud;658730]I'm not suggesting he hit the reset button. But not backing down at all off your initial agenda after a very poor first year is indicative of the arrogance of this administration. (cough *Rahm Emanuel* cough)[/quote]


Poor first year? That is a matter of opinion isn't it? I mean his [URL="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html"]approval ratings[/URL] is down from it's high but it still in the black.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=saden1;658732]They disagree all the time through amicus briefs and through the media, I don't see why politely disagreeing with the ruling "on the biggest possible stage" is a bad thing.[/quote]

Yeah, but how often does the POTUS call out the Supreme Court during the State of the Union? And did he even have his facts straight when he did so? Too divisive for the the SOTU. He should have kept such rhetoric to said amicus briefs.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=GMScud;658734]Yeah, but how often does the POTUS call out the Supreme Court during the State of the Union? And did he even have his facts straight when he did so? Too divisive for the the SOTU. He should have kept such rhetoric to said amicus briefs.[/quote]

I assure you it happens more often than you think, only this time it's Obama doing it. I acutally remember Bush doing something similar though I can't remember when and what it was about (I'll try to look for it).

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=saden1;658736]I assure you it happens more often than you think, only this time it's Obama doing it. I acutally remember [B]Bush doing something similar[/B] though I can't remember when and what it was about (I'll try to look for it).[/quote]

That alone should've let you know it was a dumb ass move.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

Two things. First, the modern Supreme Court was born out of a contentious conflict with the executive branch ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison]Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]). Presidents critique the courts all the time. Bush made the rallying cry of his 04 campaign pushing back against "activist judges" who, he claimed, didn't respect American tradition.

Second, unless I missed something Obama didn't criticize the legal reasoning underpinning the decision, only its implication, and this was in the context of proposing a new law to contain the fallout out of unfettered political contributions. Had he criticized them, given his previous employment as a constitutional law professor I don't think that would have been outrageous, but he didn't even do that.

GM, you've asserted that all this is "BAD" but you haven't told us why?

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

The "bad" thing, as I see it, is that at 2 points in the speech Obama had a chance to acknowledge the Checks and Balances of the US Constitution: first by acknowledging the Supreme Court's decision and 2nd by acknowledging the Congress' authority. In the first instance he called out the SC, and in the second he said he was going to ignore the senate vote and use an executive decision. Are these major changes to current policy procedure, probably not, but openly antagonizing the other branches, and using the presidency to demean them is not change we should believe in. Unless of course we missed the part where Lord Obama was given the cloak of infallibility.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

I did like a call for a freeze on spending, but can someone explain the line about that's what a budget is, cause I must be a moron. If you are over your head in debt, isn't the first thing you do cut unnecessary spending, then get your payments organized based on the money you do have? I may have misunderstood him, but it seemed like he said that we will overspend again this year with the plan to freeze spending next year, because thats what a budget is. It really didn't sound right, it sounded more like "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;658772]I did like a call for a freeze on spending, but can someone explain the line about that's what a budget is, cause I must be a moron. If you are over your head in debt, isn't the first thing you do cut unnecessary spending, then get your payments organized based on the money you do have? I may have misunderstood him, but it seemed like he said that we will overspend again this year with the plan to freeze spending next year, because thats what a budget is. It really didn't sound right, it sounded more like "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".[/quote]

The Federal budget is created one year prior. 2010 budget was put together 2009 and is already set in stone. Around this summer the 2011 budget will be put together.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=saden1;658816]The Federal budget is created one year prior. 2010 budget was put together 2009 and is already set in stone. Around this summer the 2011 budget will be put together.[/quote]

Sounds good, but fact is, if they want to increase spending they do it through additional budget items. They can certainly freeze spending as well. I know everyone has heard it, but while in the military at the end of the fiscal year we would literally waste ammunition, so that our next year's budget number would not decrease. You could freeze spending now, today if they wanted to, but really, they don't want to, they only want to make the pledge in the election year, and then the new congress will ignore the pledge. been there done that.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

The two things he ran on that he actually had full control of was making the goverment more open and earmarks. He did neither but again last night talked about them as if he had no controll over them this past year. I do like the freeze on spending but we have to see how much they spend this year so they can freeze spending next year. Just more of the same stuff.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;658738]That alone should've let you know it was a dumb ass move.[/quote]

[URL="http://reagan2020.us/speeches/state_of_the_union_1988.asp"]How about Reagan[/URL]?

[quote]And let me add here: so many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being - yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.

-Reagan
1988 State of the Union
[/quote]

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;658817]Sounds good, but fact is, if they want to increase spending they do it through additional budget items. They can certainly freeze spending as well. I know everyone has heard it, but while in the military at the end of the fiscal year we would literally waste ammunition, so that our next year's budget number would not decrease. You could freeze spending now, today if they wanted to, but really, they don't want to, they only want to make the pledge in the election year, and then the new congress will ignore the pledge. been there done that.[/quote]

The military is always good for supplemental budget increase that's for sure. Is it possible to tell agencies your next check is going to be 5% less than what you expect? Yes. Is this the best way to do it? No. For a ship this big you have to plan for these things.

The biggest mistake Obama made was taking the Military, SS, Medicare/Medicaid budget cuts off the table. To tell you the truth, the whole thing is a gimmick no matter whether he does it now or next year as those programs account for 90% of the fucking budget.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=saden1;658731]Since Schneed10 is a budget expert I would love to hear him address your "didn't he quadruple national debt" question.[/quote]

Yeah I'm not sure where that came from, the US is $12 trillion in debt. Remember, [B]debt[/B] is a snapshot of what we owe as of this moment. The [B]deficit[/B] is the amount we are going into further debt on a yearly basis.

So far in his presidency, Obama has added $1 trillion to the [B]deficit[/B]. Meaning because of his actions, if nothing else is done, we will owe one trillion more at this time next year than we otherwise would have.

If he gets other things accomplished, he can improve that number.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=saden1;658828]The military is always good for supplemental budget increase that's for sure. Is it possible to tell agencies your next check is going to be 5% less than what you expect? Yes. Is this the best way to do it? No. For a ship this big you have to plan for these things.

The biggest mistake Obama made was taking the Military, SS, Medicare/Medicaid budget cuts off the table. To tell you the truth, the whole thing is a gimmick no matter whether he does it now or next year as those programs account for 90% of the fucking budget.[/quote]

I think we have had this discussion before, I applauded him for cutting the one military project, and I agree that taking the Military/SS/Medicare off the table shows it's a gimmick, a sound bite and not a real attempt to resolve it. Whatever tho, he has enough votes that he should be pushing his agenda and let the dice land where they will, not blaming a 40 senate republican opposition for stalemating him.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=saden1;658828]The military is always good for supplemental budget increase that's for sure. Is it possible to tell agencies your next check is going to be 5% less than what you expect? Yes. Is this the best way to do it? No. For a ship this big you have to plan for these things.

The biggest mistake Obama made was taking the Military, SS, Medicare/Medicaid budget cuts off the table. To tell you the truth, the whole thing is a gimmick no matter whether he does it now or next year as those programs account for 90% of the fucking budget.[/quote]
There is so much room to cut spending its not even funny. Every agency every year if they have any money left over they don't give it back to the goverment they spend it so they won't have their budget slashed by that amount the following year. For example. If ship A has 2 million left in its budget close to the end of the year they rush around to spend this money. If they don't the following year their budget will get slashed by 2 million. This is just a crazy way to run anything and the goverment should provide incentives to any agency that can reduce it budget in the form of bonuses or something like that. If any business ran itself like the goverment they would go under in no time and its something that needs fixing.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=saden1;658826][URL="http://reagan2020.us/speeches/state_of_the_union_1988.asp"]How about Reagan[/URL]?[/quote]

How about these activist judges stop making law by fiat? I haven't seen anything about the seperation of church and state, or anything about human reproduction in the Constitution.

If I had a D next to my name you'd kiss my ass.

Re: State of the Union (1/27/10)
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;658839]How about these activist judges stop making law by fiat? I haven't seen anything about the seperation of church and state, or anything about human reproduction in the Constitution.

If I had a D next to my name you'd kiss my ass.[/quote]

My ass kissing is contingent upon beliefs and policy. Clearly you don't qualify.