State of the Union: Analyzing Republican Reactions

[rewebster]

well, well, well...

America---the future---what do you think and like/dislike about the speech?





(Why are the Republicans all dressed alike and most clap only at certain times?)

 

[Pengwuino]

Did you go through some sort of wormhole and are in the future? It's still going on right now. And that's what the minority party does at the state of the union, only clap at certain things that agree with them.

 

[russ_watters]

I listened to most of it this morning when a political talk show host read it on the air...I'll wait to comment until I can actually quote the transcript though.

[edit: googling, you can find it online right now, but most news sources probably wait to post it until he finishes delivering it just in case he improvises some of it.]

 

[rewebster]

The main message I got was: 'Think more about America than you have in the past.'

 

[Gokul43201]

Wow! I liked most of the speech AND most of the response. That's a first for me.

 

[noblegas]

for some reason its not posted on youtube but oddly his responses to the questions he was given is posted on youtube. Anyone know where else I can find a copy of his state of the union address

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, I'll start with a few line-by-line critiques, then give a general impression...

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades — the burden of working harder and longer for less...

Common liberal refrain. Vague enough to not technically be a lie, but what it is intended to convey is false for the vast majority of Americans.

They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness.

A lesson Obama (hopefully, he really has) learned last Tuesday. Up until Tuesday, with the filibuster-proof majority, there was no need for bipartisanship and with an adjenda very far to the left, no place for it in his administration.

But when I ran for president, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular — I would do what was necessary.

Riiiiiiiight.

As a result [of TARP], the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.

To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

Well, except for the fact that most of the biggest banks have already paid back their TARP funds ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants ) and the money that is at risk is in banks not paying it back...so what he is suggesting is not "to pay back" what was given to them, it is to get the big banks to cover the TARP losses of small banks. I wonder if those banks could sue the government over changing the terms of a contract after it was signed and refuse to pay the money?

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans, made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA and passed 25 different tax cuts.

I'm generally OK with this, but these systems need to be reformed to prevent abuse. I've only known a handful of people who have been on unemployment, but the only one I know who didn't abuse it or get it when they didn't need it is me. It is a simple economic reality that people will do what you pay them to do, so if you pay people when they are out of work, a great many will gladly accept the deal and choose not to work. Just a few weeks ago a I heard a friend of a friend say she worked two days at a new job, but decided the extra money (above her unemployment) wasn't worth the extra effort of having to work for it.

Let me repeat: we cut taxes...

That's fine, but when you are a tax-and-spend democrat who only spends, the result is a $1.4 T deficit!

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit — one that will go to over 1 million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.

These are good - and very surprising from Obama. We'll see how they go over in Congress.

. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.

Also good and very surprising. But as with the previous, it is so surprising from Obama it is tough to believe he's serious. Where's that "blue ribbon panel" report on nuclear waste you promised us?

Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support 2 million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a national export initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports and reform export controls consistent with national security.

Interesting. Sounds good, but I doubt that that is something you can make happen just by wishing it.

And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.

Really? Very little of what is now on the table has anything to do with the middle class. And if it is really about money, why aren't you proposing to deal with the problems that make it expensive...? [yeah, more on that later...]

Now let's be clear — I did not choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.

Heh, right. Socialized healthcare has been a wet dream of liberals for some 50 years. But you took it on for the same reason Clinton did: it's good politics in a campaign. It sounds great when you don't have to actually outline a real plan or subject it to CBO analysis. In a campaign, you can just wave your hand and say everyone will have free heathcare and people who want to believe it will. But as with Clinton's failed plan, once they realize who is paying for the free healthcare and what it actually means, it becomes unpopular.

The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market.

Well no, actually, the failure to address the flaws in the insurance industry is one of the biggest complaints people have against it. Heck, if this were just about addressing the flaws in the current system, there'd be no need to burn it to the ground and start over with nationalized healthcare.

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.

True, but that's not really what you wanted, is it? Tough to consider that a win.

And according to the Congressional Budget Office— the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress — our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

I suppose I'm supposed to be impressed by that? How 'bout making it revenue neutral right from the start? Regardless, given how fast the deficit just went up and where it is today, taking 20 years to knock $1T off of it sounds like nothing short of a fiscal calamity to me.

horse trading

AKA, selling votes in a way that was almost certainly illegal.

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves.

Lol, right, because you just said it would take 20 years to drop $1T!

By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.

That's a mischaracterization due to the fact that a lot of the TARP money is coming back, but in any case, what you've so far proposed isn't helping that.

The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Ok...

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will.

Sounds nice, but it is peanuts. Tens of billions off a trillion dollar problem.

More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that let's us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.

We'll see. Buying votes with Social Security is a powerful thing that Congress won't give up easily. And it won't be popular for Obama either, so I suspect we'll hear about as much from this "commission" as we've heard from his "blue ribbon panel" on nuclear waste. But it sounds nice to say in a speech.

And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.

That would be interesting - a democratic congress passing a law similar to a republican one from 15 years ago!

It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress.

Um, ok...now that you've let all the lobbyists you need into your administration, it is time to clamp down on lobbyists like you promised you would before you were elected? Gee, thanks.

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. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

Quick lesson on Constitutional law: if a law gets struck down by the USSC, a similar law will also almost certainly be unconstitutional. If you want to tackle that issue, you need an amendment. Perhaps one is needed.

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more.

Nice, but we need to wait until after you get your bovine infused healthcare package through before you do that, right?

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills.

Translation: get what you can get passed before half of you are voted out of office in 10 months.

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together.

Indeed - a lot of this speech reads like "oops, I can't ignore the republicans anymore". When you have a filibuster proof majority, there is no need to be bipartisan. Now he's forced to do it at least a little.

So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and the world.

That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence.

1. Then stop downplaying the threat of terrorism and start taking it seriously. 1a. Stop ignoring/suppressing the Ft. Hood terrorist attack - release the report you've been sitting on for the past 2 months. 1b. Keep the Guantanamo Bay facility open.

All in all, a great speech. Speeches are what he does best. The tone to me is of someone aiming for the middle. But he did that during the campaign, too: he made himself sound moderate when in fact he's extremely liberal. So time will tell whether he's:
1. Learning he was wrong and shifting to the middle because it is the right thing to do.
2. Shifting to the middle because it is politically popular.
3. Shifting to the middle because he no longer has a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
4. Pretending to shift to the middle (like how he campaigned).

Obama is an idealogue, so it is hard for me to believe he would so quickly shift the way he looks at the world. I don't trust that he's going to really try to do the moderate things he says and I think he left a lot of very liberal adjenda items out.

 

[russ_watters]

for some reason its not posted on youtube but oddly his responses to the questions he was given is posted on youtube. Anyone know where else I can find a copy of his state of the union address

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-27-sotu-transcript_N.htm

 

[noblegas]

Has any president ever given any speech without ending with god bless america? I don't think I ever heard one without that phrase

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has any president ever given any speech without ending with god bless america? I don't think I ever heard one without that phrase

Not that I can recall.

I liked how he looked at the Republicans and stated plainly that we tried it their way, and look where it got us. My sentiments exactly. As the camera panned the audience, many looked like kids caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think Obama did a great job, as always - plenty for Congress to do and a high bar. In principle I can agree with most of what he said. Of course, the devil is in the details.

 

[Al68]

I liked how he looked at the Republicans and stated plainly that we tried it their way, and look where it got us.

The recession was caused by my ex-wife's weight gain. After all, it happened at the same time. And I still tell her "Now look where your weight gain got us". Maybe if I keep repeating this over and over, others will be brainwashed into thinking it's true.

 

[Skyhunter]

The recession was caused by my ex-wife's weight gain. After all, it happened at the same time. And I still tell her "Now look where your weight gain got us". Maybe if I keep repeating this over and over, others will be brainwashed into thinking it's true.

Just need to convince your wife so she will drop a few pounds.

Wow, Russ. I thought for a minute you were responding to one of my posts.

 

[Gokul43201]

The recession was caused by my ex-wife's weight gain.

I think Obama was referring to the deficits, but can not confirm that until I find the relevant part in a transcript.

 

[Dembadon]

The recession was caused by my ex-wife's weight gain. After all, it happened at the same time. And I still tell her "Now look where your weight gain got us". Maybe if I keep repeating this over and over, others will be brainwashed into thinking it's true.

Except one is a logical fallacy and the other is not.

 

[rewebster]

Not that I can recall.

I liked how he looked at the Republicans and stated plainly that we tried it their way, and look where it got us. My sentiments exactly. As the camera panned the audience, many looked like kids caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

yep--about 30 years (or more) of self interest from kick backs of the large interests of large companies tuned into just bigger kickbacks to enhance the individual and the overall RNC with no regard for 'the people', for only re-election to continue the cycle and drawing from the gov't's piggy bank to do it (national debt). Democrats are elected to try and straighten out the problem, and the republicans don't like the interruption.

I think the American government would have had to declare bankruptcy if the republicans had won the presidency in 2008.

 

[russ_watters]

Another general observation:

The speech is mostly fluff. That isn't in and of itself a condemnation as state of the union speeches are usually mostly fluff and fluffy speeches are what Obama does best, but he's been criticized enough over his lack of substance, I actually expected to see more of it here. Most of his new or reiterated policy goals were throw-away one-liners with no substance on which to even get an idea of what he intends, much less make a judgement (without rumor and speculation). Nost notably, he said Congress shouldn't give up on health care reform, but he didn't say what they should do. Ie, he could have simply said 'I call upon the House to pass the Senate version of the health care bill - it isn't perfect, but it is better than nothing.' Instead, we are left with no real idea what comes next.

This general observation applies to most of what I highlighted in my previous post. As well, things he left out such as Guantanamo Bay. That's a fairly hot issue right now (we just passed his deadline for closing it), but even after the deadline to close it passed, he still has never explicitly stated what he is going to do. If the rumors are correct and he's going to transfer them to Il while maintaining the status quo (or worse, upgrading their status), that's an issue for which people are already getting an idea of what the substance is and they don't like it. So like Ft Hood, the Christmas Day attempted terrorist attack (initially) and his nuclear waste panel, he's better off just preteneding it doesn't exist.

Since he only paid lip service to most of the policy changes/updates, we can only speculate about what he'll do. It is reasonable to believe that he'll follow his form in dealing with issues that he likes (while perhaps distancing himself from them when they fail). For things that are outside his normal frame of reference such as nuclear power, we'll just have to wait and see if he really means it or if the lip service is a purely political gambit. When a politician doesn't agree with a policy that is nevertheless politically popular (weird to day that about nuclear power, but it appears to now be true...), the smart political move is to be to pay it lip service to the issue without actually dealing with it, then if necessary blaming others for its failure. That way, you can claim you worked on an issue without actually working on it and the gullible fraction of the electorate will buy it and award points for effort. This, of course, is how many of us passed English class in high school.

But I'd love to be disappointed: I stand ready to read your proposals for how you intend to deal with these issues, Mr. Obama.

 

[Skyhunter]

A he could have simply said 'I call upon the House to pass the Senate version of the health care bill - it isn't perfect, but it is better than nothing.' Instead, we are left with no real idea what comes next.

Even had he said it we would still be left wondering what comes next.

I find your generic criticism profoundly deficient in substance.

 

[Al68]

The recession was caused by my ex-wife's weight gain. After all, it happened at the same time. And I still tell her "Now look where your weight gain got us". Maybe if I keep repeating this over and over, others will be brainwashed into thinking it's true.

Except one is a logical fallacy and the other is not.

They both contain the same logical fallacy. One is just much more obvious than the other. That's what analogies are for.

 

[russ_watters]

The recession was caused by my ex-wife's weight gain. After all, it happened at the same time. And I still tell her "Now look where your weight gain got us". Maybe if I keep repeating this over and over, others will be brainwashed into thinking it's true.

I think Obama was referring to the deficits, but can not confirm that until I find the relevant part in a transcript.

Except one is a logical fallacy and the other is not.

Recession, deficits, whatever. The same logical fallacy is in play for anything related to economics and that logical fallacy is that the guy who is in office when it happens is automatically held responsible by the public. The reality, of course, is that the vast majority economic policies take years for the full effects to manifest, even rebates and stimulus, which give a quick shot, then have after-effects.

The GDP, unemployment and the deficit (all of which were cited in the speech) are somewhat intertwined, with the GDP (the recession) being the biggest driver right now. The largest root causes of the recession are the housing bubble, sub-prime mortgages and derivatives, all related to each other. And the blame for that falls on a number of people, but not even the liberal rag Time Magazine put Bush in the top 10 or even above Clinton in a run-down they did about a year ago of the top 25 people responsible: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1877351,00.html

Notables on the list:
1. The CEO of Countrywide for lending money to anyone who asked for it. He may yet go to jail for that.
2. Phil Graham for writing the enabling legislation for derivative trading and the repeal of the Glass-Segall act which separated banks from investment companies. Perhpas the fact that that second one was passed just after the Depression to help prevent another depression should have been a red flag that it probably shouldn't be repealed...
13. Bill Clinton for signing both of the above into law, as well as another law to put pressure on guys like #1 to lend money to people who couldn't pay it back.
14. Bush - "Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch." They actually have little specific besides the above noted logical fallacy. The worst he did was block regulation of mutual and hedge funds, but those didn't play a major part in the meltdown. He also tried, but failed, to tighten control over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And he did pass tighter regulation in the wake of ENRON.

Looking at those last two descriptions, it should be evident that though they are 13 and 14, Bush didn't have anywhere near as big a hand in the economic meltdown as Clinton did. Bush futzed around and didn't do (much good or bad), but Clinton actively encouraged the "irrational exhuberence" that led to the crash.

Now Bush has specific hands in the current deficits due to the wars he started, the creation of the Homeland Security Dept and TARP. But only the Iraq war was really unnecessary (I'm begrudgingly accepting TARP), and wars are little different from other direct economic stimulus as most of the money spent is directly into the economy (paying soldiers, buying guns and tanks, etc). So you can't just say $500 billion for a war is all deficit any more than you can say $500 billion for a "stimulus" is all benefit. Both are both. Economically, stimulus spending is probably better than war spending because you may spend some of the money on things that will pay dividends, but just as stimulus spending isn't as good as democrats want people to believe, war spending isn't as bad.

My feeling about the recession is that recessions happen and most people can weather them as long as they don't lose their jobs. My company laid off about 10% of its employees and cut everyone else's base hours by 10%, while eliminating most overtime (I'm an engineer and paid by the hour and usually average around 10% overtime). So my pay was effectively cut 20%, but I didn't los my job, so I can muddle through the next year until the economy picks up. But if I lost my job, I'd be up a creek.

So government economic stimulus should be targeted almost exclusively at jobs. Tax rebates and across the board tax cuts? They're nice and I'll take them, but I and the economy don't really need them. Extending unemployment - as I said before, ok, but don't abuse it. Money is best spent, however, by encouraging companies to hire/keep employees. Having the government directly hire people is not typically a good idea because the government doesn't do what the market needs, it does what special interests want or what is expedient. Ie, the road paving was one of the big early simulus, but were asphault laborers having a down year and by pouring so much money into it, did we end up just oversaturating that sector with money that couldn't be efficiently spent? Similarly, spending money on alternate energy is nice, but it is already a growth industry and unless the money is tightly targeted, you risk waste. Bailing out GM feels good and saves jobs in the short run, but a company that is perpetually unprofitable is just a perpetual drain: better to let it go under and let Toyota buy it and hire back most of the workers (and break up the unions so they can fire the unproductive ones!).

 

[Skyhunter]

Nice post Russ.

I agree with almost all of it.

I think I'll have the beer I'm drinking tested.

 

[Gokul43201]

Recession, deficits, whatever. The same logical fallacy is in play for anything related to economics and that logical fallacy is that the guy who is in office when it happens is automatically held responsible by the public.

Not quite. There is a much stronger short term correlation between deficits and government fiscal policy, than there is with GDP growth. If I cut government spending in half next year, it will have an almost immediate and direct effect on the federal deficit, but it's effect on GDP is both hard to determine and could manifest years later.

 

[Dembadon]

They both contain the same logical fallacy. One is just much more obvious than the other. That's what analogies are for.

So then are you implying that the previous administration had no part to play in the current economic state of this country, and that saying they did play a part is a logical fallacy?

 

[Skyhunter]

So then are you implying that the previous administration had no part to play in the current economic state of this country, and that saying they did play a part is a logical fallacy?

No. He is saying that correlation is not causation.

 

[rewebster]

"Public debt in dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992, and remained at about the same level by the end of the Clinton presidency in 2000. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the total debt increased from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[7] rising from 54% of GDP to 75% of GDP"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

 

[elect_eng]

what do you think and like/dislike about the speech?

I didn't like him criticizing the recent Supreme Court decision in that forum. The Exectutive and Judicial branches of the US government are separate for a reason. The Justices make decisions based on their interpretation of constitutionality of laws. The President and Congress are in a position to enact laws that tend to mitigate the negative effects that our constitutional freedoms create. Mr. President, don't criticize the natural results of others doing their job. Instead, do your own job.

 

[Skyhunter]

I didn't like him criticizing the recent Supreme Court decision in that forum. The Exectutive and Judicial branches of the US government are separate for a reason. The Justices make decisions based on their interpretation of constitutionality of laws. The President and Congress are in a position to enact laws that tend to mitigate the negative effects that our constitutional freedoms create. Mr. President, don't criticize the natural results of others doing their job. Instead, do your own job.

And how did you feel about Bush and his criticism of Roe v. Wade? (When asked about Roe v. Wade, Bush responded: "I don't care how those poor people get out of New Orleans.)

Since the decision has a major impact on electioneering, and the Court leaves open the question of a foreign owned corporation doing business in the US and it's status...

Is it not the Presidents job to address what could be a potential election disaster, where the airwaves are saturated by corporate sponsored political ads drowning out all other voices?

 

[elect_eng]

And how did you feel about Bush and his criticism of Roe v. Wade? (When asked about Roe v. Wade, Bush responded: "I don't care how those poor people get out of New Orleans.)

Since the decision has a major impact on electioneering, and the Court leaves open the question of a foreign owned corporation doing business in the US and it's status...

Is it not the Presidents job to address what could be a potential election disaster, where the airwaves are saturated by corporate sponsored political ads drowning out all other voices?

My position is that the Supreme court made a decision based on the constitutionality of the issue. This is their job. There are many potential negative effects of our constitutional freedoms, but it is not their job to let that decide the issue. In this case they made the decision that "money is speech" in simplistic terms. It now becomes a matter for lawmakers to put in place laws that are in line with the constitution, but minimize the obvious negative things that will happen with the new ruling.

Perhaps a simple example will make my position clear. We have freedom of speech, yet it is illegal to run into a theater and yell "fire" as a prank. One right ends where it begins to infringe on other rights and laws.

I'm not so bothered by the President having an opinion on this matter. Heck, we all do. However, that forum is the wrong place to express it in my opinion. He is basically putting pressure on the Justices with them sitting right there. He clearly stepped beyond the bounds of decorum, but more importantly he jumped up and down on the fence that divides the Judicial and Executive branches of government. In fairness, he didn't go over, but it bothered me nonetheless.

 

[rewebster]

I think that supreme court decision won't be around for very long

 

[elect_eng]

I think that supreme court decision won't be around for very long

Perhaps, it will be reversed eventually, but I doubt it will happen very quickly with the Presidents actions on record now. If they were to immediately reverse it, they will be accused of caving in. I don't care how much integrity the Justices are supposed to posses. They are still human and will delay a reversal as long as possible.

The better course of action for the President would have been to simply state that the decision has potential negative consequences. He then should have pressured the congress to response with legislation that will combat the misuse of the ruling. This would have a double effect. It mitigates the issues assuming the ruling stands forever, and it allows a face saving reversal later.