Obama's SOTU Address

[romantico]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 10:31pm

IMO, I think it was one of his best speeches. He knocked it out of the park! Thoughts?

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 10:50pm

Inspirational. Now the government needs to take action. Unite.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 10:52pm

Great job, but it will not move the unmovable.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 10:53pm

I think it needed some more sexy SINGING!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 11:22pm

I hated it. Don't tell me that my kids need to stay in school until they're 18! This is AMERICA!!!!

[finebydesign]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 11:41pm

I love that he mentioned gas companies being forced to disclose chemicals used in fracking (though on public land). In a way he is supporting something many people are for but it could very well get held up from happening because they use very toxic chemicals to frack.

[Kad]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 12:42am

"I hated it. Don't tell me that my kids need to stay in school until they're 18! This is AMERICA!!!!"

Classic nanny state.

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 8:35am

If you don't like the nanny state, you should love Santorum's: stay in school, marry someone of the opposite sex, lose your virginity, have as many children as are produced by a life of unprotected sex with your spouse.

As for the speech, I don't watch SOTUs, but I do read the text, and this one reads very well.

"Great job, but it will not move the unmovable."

It was not aimed at the unmovable. It will, however, speak to independents and moderates.

[AMH]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 10:26am

My favorite part was when Obama touted the so-called success of the GM bailout, and then immediately after said he doesn't support a policy of bailouts. Huh? Doesn't make much sense.

Posted: 1/25/12 at 10:49am

I can't seem to remember that part AMH. Can you tell me what you are referring to? And why do you say "so-called success" when at the time, every major analyst was predicting the total failure of the American Auto Industry and now it's prospering?
Here's the full text

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 10:57am

I read the speech and saw nothing like what AMH is referring to. Much to the dismay of the GOP, the rescue of the auto industry was a resounding success; if not for the federal government's actions, the industry would have almost certainly failed, and the impact on our economy would have been devastating.

[romantico]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 11:05am

I was glad to hear Obama remind the American people of GM. It was also a dig towards Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B79G8IvV2A

[AMH]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 11:24am

I was talking about the part where he said, "No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts." While not directly following the statement about General Motors and Chrysler, it did make me laugh since he seemed to be for and against bailouts in the same speech.

I wouldn't call the GM and Chrysler bailouts a success since taxpayers have lost money on the deal--about $23.6 billion according to a November 2011 article I read on investors.com.
Taxpayers Get Bigger Bill From GM, Chrysler Bailout

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 11:27am

Do sock puppets pay taxes?

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 11:36am

Recent sales statistics are at odds with the tone of the article in your link. The article implies that the US auto industry is a dinosaur that should have been allowed to become extinct. Do you share that opinion, would you have let the industry collapse? That seems to be Romney's opinion.

Posted: 1/25/12 at 11:56am

Let me give you a little lesson in debating, AMH. When someone says "what are you referring to?" and gives you a copy of the text you are discussing, if you really have the aces, you cite the passage word-for-word and say "This. This is what I was referring to."

If you are making stuff up, you cite another source or link to something totally different and reassert your challenged quote as if it was proven to be true.

If I am forced to interpret your post without you telling me exactly where you think he made those contrasting statements, he did hail the auto industry "bailout" (although he didn't call it that anymore than he has ever referred to his greatest accomplishment as "Obamacare") and talked of how it required the industry to make substantive changes to the way they do business. If I recall correctly, the government's support of and insistence on these changes caused some conservatives to call the industry "Government Motors."

Then much later he referred to a bill he's proposed to allow homeowners to refinance their loans at better rates to keep more Americans from defaulting on their mortgages and referred to that proposal as "Not a bailout." Maybe that is what you were referring to?

[AMH]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 12:27pm

Recent sales statistics are at odds with the tone of the article in your link. The article implies that the US auto industry is a dinosaur that should have been allowed to become extinct. Do you share that opinion, would you have let the industry collapse? That seems to be Romney's opinion.

I would have let the free market take over. If that would have meant letting GM and Chrysler go under, then that's what should've happened. For me it all comes down to basic supply and demand. If there's no demand for a product, then I don't believe it should be subsidized by the government just to keep it afloat.

Joe, Obama praised the success of the GM and Chrysler bailouts, but then later said financial institutions should not receive a bailout, as stated below from his State of the Union adress last night.

And that's why I'm sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won't add to the deficit and will give those banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

Let's never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

We've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them. That's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior.

His insistence that responsibility is needed from everybody is not congruent with a bailout, like with GM and Chrysler. To me, it is irresponsible to reward failure.

I realize I'm in the political minority here, and that's fine.

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 12:47pm

"If there's no demand for a product, then I don't believe it should be subsidized by the government just to keep it afloat."

But sales indicate that there is a demand for American cars, and letting the industry collapse would have been catastrophic.

To others - I don't know if AMH is an alter ego for another poster, but he or she has expressed opinions in a fairly dispassionate manner. No name calling, no hysterics. Just because AMH happens to be wrong is no reason to lower the level of our discourse.

Posted: 1/25/12 at 12:59pm

Uh, that's better but are you purposely missing the point? Detroit needed to change it's ways. It asked for help and the government provided it- but in exchange there had to be accountability and repayment and the industry needed to change it's ways. I think most folks think "Bailout" is a bad word and that is why you want to keep using it. Right?

So is your issue that GM wasn't held accountable? Do you think it is still the same company it was 5 years ago? When Obama says "It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody" do you disagree?

[AMH]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 1:07pm

I can assure you, madbrian, I am no one's alter ego. I'm just a right-winger who enjoys theater.

Letting the auto makers collapse would have been catastrophic, but our economy would have eventually bounced back. That's what I believe, anyway. I just can't get on board with creating an artificial economy through subsidies.

I don't think either political party is perfect, but my opinions are only opinions. However, because I hold them, I believe them to be correct and have no problem with people disagreeing with me.

I'll just have to agree to disagree with you folks.

Posted: 1/25/12 at 1:15pm

Interesting- I heard Obama being pretty consistently attacked last night for the state of the economy and here you are admitting it would have been much worse if the US Auto Industry had collapsed. So Obama helped the economy and averted a catastrophe?

[AMH]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 1:18pm

Joe, I don't mean to keep evading your questions, so my apologies if I am.

I don't think GM should have received a bailout at all, and should have instead gone through restructuring in bankruptcy. The bailout bypassed all that and required taxpayers to lose billions on the investment. So in that sense, I don't think GM was held accountable. I think they got a free pass.

"Bailout" does have a negative connotation but that's what the GM/Chrysler deal was. I agree that Detroit needed to change its ways but I would have rather seen them do it through the bankruptcy laws that are in place. I think there are still issues that the car companies need to work out, such as unions and pensions, but I do hope the auto makers thrive.

My preference is just for government to stay out of the free market completely.

[madbrian]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 1:18pm

In my opinion, the extreme right-wing view of the economy is exactly the same as the extreme left-wing view in one critical aspect: both sound very good in the classroom or in a book, but neither work in the real world. The real world for an large industrial nation requires minimal, reasonable regulation of industry, some government-run industry, protection of rights for all, and a progressive tax system.

Posted: 1/25/12 at 1:35pm

If government had stayed "out of the free market completely" then the effects on our economy "would have been catastrophic." Your words.

Obama is being taken to task for the weakness of the economy now. But you must agree the economy is better off now than if Obama had intervened? Correct?

[AMH]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 2:09pm

Since the Detroit bailouts started under President Bush, I'll give him some blame for that. But I also take issue with Obama for perpetuating them.

The economy isn't doing too well under Obama, and, yes, I do think letting the auto industry collapse would've been catastrophic to our economy. I don't think, however, that Obama helped the economy in any way by subsidizing the auto makers. I think he and President Bush should've let the economy hit rock bottom so it could recover on its own naturally, not artificially. If this had happened I think the economy would have been booming after the recovery period, not like it is now. Nobody can say with absolute certainly, though, what would've happened either way. Again, that's just my opinion. I could be completely wrong.

I don't know if that answered your question, Joe, but that's what I believe.