State of the Union

[scandal 951]

Ok, so he's an inspirational speaker....but he hasn't done one thing he's promised in ANY of his campaign speeches...shouldn't there be substance behind the words, or is the 'feel good factor' enough?

I'm not trying to sound snarky here, I'm honestly interested

I don't think you can say he "hasn't done one thing he's promised". Some examples he pointed out in the speech tonight: The war in Iraq is being wound down with the last active combat troops set to leave on the timetable he laid out. He has delivered tax relief to the majority of Americans.

Sure, more would be better - Gitmo is still open in Jan 2010, healthcare is still an active agenda item, rather than being passed legislation, we still don't have a financial regulation bill out of the Senate.

I think his own words from tonight's speech say it best:

“But, remember this, I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.”

No, words are not enough. There has to be real change behind it. That does require the active participation of the legislative branch as well.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

He reminded me yet again why I voted for him. He is a breath of fresh air in the Washington political culture and it's an inspiration to hear him speak.

You really like the smell of Bullshite?

[Allamericankiwi 14]

Im not american but I do love the place. I like Obama as a person...he truly wants to change things I think but he's either too weak to or he cant! talk is cheap...the frilly fancy words mean nothing..which is pretty much what he's done so far....hang on he's agreed to give the immoral financiers on wall street billions so I guess that counts as doing something....so wrong....the speech was nicely written, designed to be lofty and patriotic and filled with inspirational cliches but what does it mean to the average american 5 minutes after its over....nothing..theyre hurting big time!!! and big words dont cut it anymore. Apologies are required actually...and the demos need to go. America needs a wise courageous man/women who will lead!!! with a party that empathises with the ordinary american....and do what has to be done......Cut the banks and wall street loose, slash and trash programs costing you!!...start the fence around the border....now!!... deport illegals so theres jobs for the honest and law abiding, start reducing the 11 trillion debt now!!!( reducing the overspendinG!!!! by half over 10 years is just rubbish!! what a wimp) get out of iraq and afghanistan and save trillions of your money and 1000s of lives of american youth...cut taxes so you dont have to go into so much debt to the immoral banking system...yes they are!!! Look after the ordinary battler in america Mr Obama......and sack Geithner too...what else...oh yeh, employ more staff so visas get processed faster....

[NickD 203]

I switched over to it during a NCIS rerun commercial, wife said it's crazy when everybody stands up, except the republicans and claps and shouts, very annoying. Will read the highlights of it later.

But I had to add, at least here, we have another 200 cable channels to watch, in Venezuela, Hugo is now on every cable channel, also on every radio station in that country.

At 8:55 PM, we were both dead tired after a very long hard work day, but had to watch the end of USCIS even though we already knew how it ended, we already saw it. Just wanted to see if it ended the same way. Yeah, I already lost a double or nothing bet on a football game when the replay ended the same way.

But I switched back to the State of Union and commented, this guy couldn't sell me a vacuum cleaner or a used car. For one thing, he made promises on helping the middle class with taxes. This was done with my wife's paycheck as her federal taxes withdrawn from her paycheck were greatly reduced. I suppose to help the economy with more money to spend. But when comparing our 2009 with our 2008 return, was all the same, except the check we have to send to the IRS is much larger this year due to those reduced withholdings. Now that is all BS. If this guy is talking about change, I want to see it on our tax forms. Until then, all this change talk is BS. And we still our exporting all of our jobs.

Good time to buy a home in Janesville, WI when GM laid off 4,000 workers, kind of a one town employer, but who in the hell wants to live there? Would have to wait in long lines to get food stamps. Also hurts to see all those deserted ship building yards on the coast of Lake Michigan, another place to buy cheap homes. But the real estate taxes are outrageous. Our governor is coming out tonight with more BS with salvation coming from ethanol and other bio fuels. So far, just managed to double the price of food. And a high speed railroad between Milwaukee and Madison? Both cities have an extremely high unemployment rate, so where can these unemployed ride to, to find jobs?

What is the required IQ to be a politician? Is it one or two?

[Ali G. 37]

Ok, so he's an inspirational speaker....but he hasn't done one thing he's promised in ANY of his campaign speeches...shouldn't there be substance behind the words, or is the 'feel good factor' enough?

I'm not trying to sound snarky here, I'm honestly interested

In all honestly though, what can he or any president do without the approval of congress?

Political parties in this country don't seem to understand the concept of a democracy and giving the person elected into office a shot. Then again, this is pretty much why most first world countries use a form of the parliamentary system rather than the presidential system; as it prevents stalemates like these. Such stalemates are a waste of time and do nothing to advance (progress) a nation.

The other problem with the system is that in the naive public's eye, all of the responsibility falls on the president. In reality, the president is one of three. Without the other two, he yields little power.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Booyah

[SMR 368]

In all honestly though, what can he or any president do without the approval of congress?

Political parties in this country don't seem to understand the concept of a democracy and giving the person elected into office a shot. Then again, this is pretty much why most first world countries use a form of the parliamentary system rather than the presidential system; as it prevents stalemates like these. Such stalemates are a waste of time and do nothing to advance (progress) a nation.

The other problem with the system is that in the naive public's eye, all of the responsibility falls on the president. In reality, the president is one of three. Without the other two, he yields little power.

I think I see why you and I disagree on this issue. A nation is not advanced by it's government. A nation can advance perfectly well when its government is at a stalemate.

[Ali G. 37]

I think I see why you and I disagree on this issue. A nation is not advanced by it's government. A nation can advance perfectly well when its government is at a stalemate.

Which nation is that? All I see here is third world outdated infrastructure and massive poverty, with pockets of uber-wealthy. Something akin to third world countries.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

The Chinese government has amassed $2.4 trillion USD and could buy the majority of the Midwest to the South (in cash) yet repubs still beat on about smaller government. How idiotic is that? Find me one successful nation that has achieved this status with a smaller (less government) approach.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Booyah

[Craneman 2]

I didn't watch it, but if he talked about freezing the budget and cutting spending that is total BS coming from him and as long as the Dems control the House and Senate they aren't going to freeze spending,

He said freeze the budget next year 2011, not this year 2010 !!

[SMR 368]

Which nation is that? All I see here is third world outdated infrastructure and massive poverty, with pockets of uber-wealthy. Something akin to third world countries.

Well, the US has never really had a government at a stalemate. Right now, we have two houses of Congress and a President all in the same party. Those blaming obstructionist Republicans seem to overlook that fact. The Democratic party should be able to pass anything it wants without any Republicans.

And I fail to see how a parliamentary system would be different than the current situation. If you think the government needs to be doing something, then you have a valid point in complaining that the Presidential system can put a President and Congress into power from opposite parties and lead to a stalemate. However, at present, we have a Congress and President from the same party. Isn't that the main advantage that you have been touting for the Parliamentary system? (That the PM and parliament majority are always from the same party) If that's all you need for an effective government, why isn't it working for Obama.

[Ali G. 37]

And I fail to see how a parliamentary system would be different than the current situation.

Simple, you can never have a situation where the prime minster is affiliated with one party yet the majority of the senate is affiliated with another.

After all, it's why things get done over there.

[SMR 368]

Simple, you can never have a situation where the prime minster is affiliated with one party yet the majority of the senate is affiliated with another.

After all, it's why things get done over there.

Read my post again. When I said current situation, I didn't mean the US system, I meant the state of the government in January 2010. The majority of the senate, the president, and the majority of the house, for that matter, are all the same party. If it's not working now, why would it work if we made it this way always?

[Ali G. 37]

Read my post again. When I said current situation, I didn't mean the US system, I meant the state of the government in January 2010. The majority of the senate, the president, and the majority of the house, for that matter, are all the same party. If it's not working now, why would it work if we made it this way always?

How many votes are needed to pass a bill? How many democrats are there in the Senate?

[I'm Gone 60]

The Chinese government has amassed $2.4 trillion USD and could buy the majority of the Midwest to the South (in cash) yet repubs still beat on about smaller government. How idiotic is that? Find me one successful nation that has achieved this status with a smaller (less government) approach.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/vid...d-open/1178451/

I can't open this at work, but if it is the right SNL clip it was very funny

[SMR 368]

How many votes are needed to pass a bill? How many democrats are there in the Senate?

60 votes are needed to pass a bill if there is a filibuster. Pre-Scott Brown, there were 60 Senators caucusing with the Democrats. That is the entire year of 2009. In your opinion, what progress did the government make for the American people in 2009? Even if you agree with the stimulus, it isn't really progress but rather maintenance.