1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

State of the Union

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Johnnieguy, Jan 28, 2010.

  1. Johnnieguy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    Did anyone else watch the State of the Union last night?

    I was mostly impressed by Obama's proposals, and enjoyed the fact that he stood up to the Supreme Court..Directly attacking the 5 justices who are responsible for the most recent decision.

    Other than that, a criticism, I suppose..Who on earth plans to balance their budget next year, when they are in debt this year?
     
  2. Sylver

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kenora, Ontario
    There's a whole thread in the LGBT section with a heapin' helpin' of Obama-bashing going on;

    http://www.emptyclosets.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31732

    If you'd like I could try and make this the positive counter-thread to that rather negative
    "lynch-mob mentality" thread, but I think we'd be in minority...
     
  3. mmilam75

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona
    I’m going to be writing a blog post later on today. I’ll post it here for everyone to comment on – suffice it to say I was not overly impressed with the content of the President’s proposals. Even on the social policy issues where I agree with him, it was an example of too much rhetoric, too little action.
     
  4. Johnnieguy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    It seems like that thread is primarily about DADT and DOMA..I meant for this thread to be more about the SOTU as a whole. I'm not overly optimistic that he will deliver on his promises, but after 8 years of not being able to watch the SOTU because it was too painful to actually admit that G Dub was in charge, this year's (even more so than last year) was a breath of fresh air.

    I realize he isn't perfect..That's why I offered a criticism as well. I think for this thread..If people want to compliment his speech, they should also offer a criticism...If they want to criticize the speech, they also need to offer a compliment.
     
  5. Owen

    In Loving Memory Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    613
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    That is all. My favorite quote of the whole address.
     
  6. Shevanel

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,403
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Little Neck, NY
    Oh come on, its hardly bashing and "lynch-mob" (which is an extremely poor choice in words btw xD)

    I completely understand your optimism for Obama, but just as for any politician, people are going to have opinions of him that will vary greatly from yours. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

    Don't act like he's some poor kindergartner who's getting beat up by all the other kindergartner's xD He's not. He's the president. He knew full well that he'd be hated. It comes with the job.

    The State of the Union is just dick measuring though, I don't really see much of a point to it.
     
  7. mmilam75

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Here's what I posted on my Facebook page...

    OK, so first of all, let’s start with the good. For the first time, we heard the President of the United States directly challenge a policy that many of us agree is, and I’ll be kind here, discriminatory on it’s face. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was designed to mollify conservatives who want to preserve the Armed Forces as an institution where blatant anti-gay bias is acceptable. Former President Clinton acceded to the demand because the Joint Chiefs of Staff were never committed to opening up the military for GLBT service members. In the years since, we saw that the military leadership at the Pentagon has used DADT as a means to be even more aggressive in removing qualified men and women from service. The President used the State of the Union to call out those who are opposed to that policy, and he deserves at least some credit for that.

    So, that is the good. Now, let’s cover the bad – and there’s a whole lot of bad to cover.

    First, a personal complaint. This President has been in office for more than a year now. And yet, in nearly every speech he gives, at least one whole paragraph of the speech is dedicated to “When I came into office…” In January of 2002, President George W. Bush was not talking about what he had inherited from the Clinton Administration. In January of 1994, former President Clinton had stated talking about what he was doing, not what he had received from former President George H.W. Bush. After a year, we expect our Presidents to take responsibility for the decisions they’ve made in their first year in office. President Obama could learn a great deal in this regard from his predecessors when it comes to taking responsibility and no longer passing the buck onto his predecessor after more than a year in office.

    With that being said, let’s talk about the economy. Providing a surcharge to banks and other lending institutions might sound like a good populist move, but what is the long term impact of that policy? The banks that may need help in the future are going to be less anxious about requesting any kind of short term assistance. Going forward, you know what’s going to happen? They will simply eliminate enough of their workforce to allow them to keep their head above water while they make changes to their business model that allows them to remain in business. I’m not in favor of bailouts en masse, but the policy the President announced tonight would have further extend the reach of the Federal government in a way that anyone should find terrifying.

    Then we come to the spending proposals. What the President talked about tonight essentially amounts to a second round of stimulus spending. Can anyone seriously claim that the spending freeze the President referred to will seriously pay for all the new spending projects that Mr. Obama announced tonight? If they don’t, and any serious economist will tell you that a spending freeze won’t adequately fund these programs, then we’re back at the place we were before the speech – either we’re spending even more money we don’t have, we’re going to see taxes raised or the President is going to have to get serious about cutting back other programs in order to pay for this. Unfortunately, the President never bothered to mention how he was going to pay for any of the spending he mentioned – as he did with health care, he left the details up to Congress. Because, clearly, the approach of leaving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of writing legislation worked so well with the health care bill, right?

    And then we turn to health care. Essentially, the President’s approach tonight is to ignore the plain results of Massachussetts and keep charging ahead with his health care proposal. The main problem with the President’s health care proposals has never been death panels or any of the other sideshow attractions the media get distracted by. No, the main problem with ObamaCare has always been two-fold. Number one, the President’s policy does nothing to rein in the Medicare billing problem which is forcing thousands of doctors out of business because they can’t get reimbursed from Medicare. Along the same lines, the problem would be even worse under the bill passed by the House because a public option along the lines of what Speaker Pelosi originally introduced would make the Medicare billing problem look like child’s play in comparison. The second problem is that private insurers would not be able to compete with a government program that can change the rules of the market by executive fiat. Slowly but surely, we’re going to see private insurers driven out of the market, limiting the choices available to individuals seeking private coverage. It’s what we’ve seen in the U.K. and Canada, and the direct result of that has been the rationing of care and the waiting lists that force people to come across the border into the United States to receive care paid for by private insurers. The President said not one word to deal with these issues, and it demonstrates a tone deaf approach that could come back and doom the Democrats in November.

    Besides health care, I was somewhat surprised to hear the President engage the folks he disagrees with on climate change. I actually agree with the President that, even if my friends farther on the conservative side of the environmental debate than I am disagree with the science on climate change, promoting a renewable energy market is the right thing to do. The problem is that, yet again, the President diagnoses the problem but manages to get the solution completely wrong. Instead of providing incentives to local communities, businesses and anyone with a stake in the process, the President chose to emphasize what Washington could spend. The approach, yet again, causes the Federal government to spend more and do more when there is a developing consensus that Washington already spends too much and accomplishes too little. The analysis of the issue is right, but the President’s approach won’t accomplish what he wants it to, and that’s the problem with what we heard last night.

    And then we come to the part of the speech that I was simultaneously pleased and angered by. First, let me provide a few facts. For those of you who are not aware, the national Log Cabin Republicans are pursuing a lawsuit to provide a legal challenge to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. That lawsuit has been actively opposed by the Justice Department of this Administration. So, what we have, as Charles Moran pointed out immediately after the speech is a process in which the White House says one thing in front of the cameras while they do another when they hope nobody is paying attention. Now, I’ve been involved in politics for long enough to know that what is really going on here is good old fashioned Machiavellian politics. In The Prince, Machiavelli writes that, if you’re going to do a favor for someone, make sure you do it close enough to when you need their help that they’re not likely to forget it. That’s what we really have going on here, and it’s complete hypocrisy from someone who came to power promising to “change the tone” in Washington.

    Some folks have been asking today “what do they want” where GLBT groups are concerned. While I won’t presume to speak for anyone besides myself, what I will say is that those 32 words represented little more than an empty promise. If the President were serious about ending DADT, the following three steps could be easily taken:

    1) Announce an end to the Justice Department’s opposition to the lawsuit seeking a judicial overturning of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy
    2) State clearly that the President is going to sign an Executive Order suspending enforcement of the policy for the next twelve months, guaranteeing Congress has time to act on the proposal to overturn DADT.
    3) Immediately request that the Chairs of the Armed Services Committees in the House and Senate open hearings on overturning the policy.
    4) Order Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates to cooperate with any and all efforts to end the policy.

    None of those steps were taken. Today, the Justice Department has not taken action to suspend their opposition to the pending lawsuit and the Obama Administration is no closer to taking any action on this than they were before the speech. And that demonstrates a half baked dedication to this cause. I’m glad the President said something. Unfortunately, he still isn’t willing to do anything, and GLBT people, the next time any Democrat asks for their electoral support, should bear that in mind.

    Overall, the entire speech could be summed up as long on rhetoric, short on details. To be fair, the State of the Union isn’t a policy speech, and I get that. However, the fact that it was so short on specifics and leaves the American people with no idea of what the President’s specific plan is to deal with the challenges we face, all of us should be concerned about a ship of state without a rudder or even a map to guide this country over the next three years.