President’s speech

The State of the Union address Tuesday was the best speech I have ever heard President Barack Obama give. But what Republican conservative wrote it? These are not the words of the old Obama I know.

Is my hearing failing? Obviously, someone enlightened our president. It sounds as if he wants to win a second term.

His speech writer deserves a medal.

Robert Patterson
Lee’s Summit

Comments

[JDog]

Whoa folks, don't knock the WSJ piece unless you've read it. And there were similar pieces in USA Today and CNN. The WSJ piece dealt with current tax rates for both corporations and individuals; the most common deductions and the wildest deductions. It ws a factual walk through the statistics of the IRS. And as one may or may not expect, the President is substantially bending the facts.

Do you know what percentage of people making over $250k a year derived at least 50% of their income from long-term investments?
Do you know the average Federal tax rate paid by people making $250k a year?

Simply put, the President is making an issue out of something that is extremely rare. Buffet and Romney are the exceptions, not the rule. Most taxppayers with incomes over $250k pay almost TWICE the percentage in Federal income taxes than those making less than $250k. Twice the percentage!

Now let's talk FAIR SHARE.

[whispering_to_kc]

You do realize the WSJ was bought out by Rupert Murdoch, right? The WSJ is part of the FOX media empire.

[ggbridge]

I wonder if any politician will be frank and say that we are in a new economic reality without the dot com and housing bubbles and that around 9% unemployment is what we can expect from here on out. I doubt it.

[Uncommon sense]

JD, I didn't really say anything about jobs. I just posted how I thought working with CCs is a good idea. I thought he did a good job framing an argument for the income gap. This will be an election issue.

By the way, saying "even the WSJ ran an Oped piece outlining Obama's lack of understanding of taxes" would be akin to me saying even MSNBC ran an Oped of how Newt is an arrogant twit. The WSJ is inherently conservative. I have read many pieces from the WSJ, and I would personally say that a firm understanding about tax reality is missed on them as well. There is theory and there is reality.

[JDog]

Us, I'm surprised that you thought the SOTU speech was good at addressing unemployment/emoployment/jobs. Seems most analyst thought he did a poor job of addressing 'jobs', but rather spent alot of his time asking for a fairer tax system. Even the KC Star's headline was "Fair Share". Hardly an endorsement of a 'Jobs' speech.
Again, I don't think this President has a vision/clue how to create jobs, unless they're government jobs and created at the expense of other tax payers.
In typical Obama form, he spoke in generalities and avoided any detail. Even the WSJ ran an Oped piece that outlined Obama's lack of understanding of taxes.

[Uncommon sense]

To the speech; I thought it was decent. There was some really good specifics, like working with local CCs to help retool workers with skills needed for the current marketplace. There were a lot of grand ideas though. I do think he did a good job of making an argument for a better economic structure to deal with the income gap. It is an issue.

[Uncommon sense]

To the Santorum and the old lady issue; did anyone see The Colbert Report where an old woman stood up to talk about Santorum? It was brilliant. I guess Santorum runs a young blonde human trafficking ring. Of course Colbert didn't want to correct her. I mean, she was old and had two canes.

[JDog]

gg, actually, I don't view any of the things you mentioned to be a concern of the Federal government. I am Pro-Choice, but NO government $$$ should be involved. If NPR, Planned Parenthood and Sesame Street can survive as a viable business without tax payer support, then they should survive.

[ggbridge]

JDog, as a fiscal conservative and social moderate, does it bother you that the first ten things a republican president will try to do will have to do with abortion? Fiscally, NPR, Planned Parenthood, Sesame Street, will all be on the chopping block - saving thousands of dollars - and taking weeks and weeks of time. At least with Obama we won't have to go through that crap again. I think a great scenario would be republicans taking the house and senate, and Obama winning re-election. That way the republicans can come up with legislation (democrats seem pretty stymied by that at this point) and Obama can veto the crazy stuff - or have the threat of veto so it doesn't even come up. Here's hoping.

[JDog]

sol, I stick to my statement. I'm amazed that I consider these isses "history" and you don't.
I consider anyone who brings them up to be pot stirrers. Maybe that's why you won't let go (LOL).
I'm a registered Libertarian. Spent most of my life as a Republican. I describe myself as a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. If the far right people want to keep bringing up the issue, why do you keep embracing it? The more you embrace it, the longer it takes to die. You're doing the exact opposite of what your claiming.
I can see (I think) that in your heart you wish these issues would NEVER come up again. So, when people of vastly different opinions bring them up, ignore them. That's what I think Santorum did. Had Santorum embraced the comments or firmly denounced them, the whole pot would have boiled over, AGAIN. (and I think that's what you really want to see)... Which is contrary to your heart.

[zeno]

....just a question....had Santorum corrected that guy purposefully and firmly and the video had gone viral, would it have strengthened or hurt Santorum with voters?....if any part of you acknowledges that it would have hurt him I'd question your position on this
Posted by: solomon | January 27, 2012 at 03:41 PM

Actually has repeated stood up and called this type of thinking wrong. As he explained the next day on MSNBC, he decided not to take on the old person who seemed very frail and unstable. Probably arguing with some old woman is not a great way to get votes.
But again as usual Sol msees racism everywhere.

Someone should advise Santorum to get Sol's vote he needs to run out into the crowd next time and grab the old lady's cane and beat the snot out of her with it!

[solomon]

.....JDog.....maybe I'm wrong....have the big names that conservatives follow and listen to daily made clear that that type of thinking is stupid and bigotry?...has the RNC mentioned in its newsletter and emails anything about speaking against hateful rhetoric...I would like to think that because you want it to be considered over it is truly over...is there a self policing aspect that republicans have instituted amongst themselves lately dedicated to ration and acceptance?....

....just a question....had Santorum corrected that guy purposefully and firmly and the video had gone viral, would it have strengthened or hurt Santorum with voters?....if any part of you acknowledges that it would have hurt him I'd question your position on this

[JDog]

sol, so you don't consider those issues "settled"?
I see your agruement as they are settled and the "bigots" keep bringing them up.

Very interesting that I consider them settled, and you don't.

[solomon]

.......JDog.....I believe things that were settled in the past are topics of history while things yet unsettled that occur today are subject to discussion about outcome....it is my hope that I would not willingly ignore hatred next to me because we shared a goal....you would (as you'd have every right) which makes us see this differently....

[JDog]

Well, sol, then let's keep talking about "Chicago Politicians" in the same vein as the 1920's. Let's talk "chads" from the 2000 Presidential election. And sure, why not stir up a little "birth certificate" conversation.

You're enntitled to stir whatever pot you want to stir. I prefer to move forward, and that's what I think Santorum did.

I'll repeat what I have posted here 3-4 times;
I believed in the Courts ruling in the 2000 election. I believed in the Courts ruling on the Obama birth certificate.

To demand it be addressed by a Presidential candidate is to demand it be kept on the front burner. Why, unless you think the birth certificate issue has merit!!! Apparently, you do, but Santorum doesn't.

[steven klein]

A different perspective on the President's speech from a supporter.

Once again I was frustrated as the President did not directly and energetically deal with the challenges of entitlement reform and intermediate and long term budget deficits. If he is going to win the next election, he needs the votes of many moderates for whom these are very important issues. Merely waiting for Republicans to make proposals and then attack them is both dishonest and counterproductive.

In my view, if a democrat wants to have credible views on major tax reform and higher revenue from the wealthy, he must convince people that their tax dollars are spent wisely, corruption and waste are addressed continuously, programs are regularly reevaluated and ineffective ones discontinued, and free market options are always kept on the table unless there are compelling reasons for another approach. If you do those things credibly, then I think a majority of people are willing to pay taxes even if it means the level of federal spending is relatively high.

But the President and most leading democrats are simply unwilling or afraid to tackle these issues in a serious way. Unfortunately, I don't know if these is premeditated political strategy, a lack of real concern, a lack of constructive ideas or a simple misreading of the electorate. Whatever the case, if he does this credibly he can win. If not, it will be a cliffhanger and political defeat would be deserved.

[solomon]

.....JDog...IMO, "stand here, ignore it and it'll go away" is actually "stand here, ignore it and...heck, just stand here and ignore it"....I view you as a sensible individual(probably not a compliment here) so I ask you, how is ignoring bigotry today because it has already been discussed yesterday a rational position and what harm would addressing actual in your face falsehoods cause?....

[JDog]

I have no problem with Santorum not addressing the “supporters” contentions. As a matter of fact I found his response to perfect. {paraphrased} “I’m not going to give your statement any credence; I’m just going to beat Obama at the ballot box.”
When you want Santorum to addressed the bigot, you’re asking for an all out war on subjects that have been battled to death. I see no reason for such a war.
And just to get my opinion out there, I find it hard that loco was beginning to respect Santorum before he found any respect for Romney or Paul who are the more moderate Republican candidates. JMO.

[solomon]

......BD.....mixed marriage.....George Jetson loves Betty Rubble.....

[Big Daddy]

It is rare (if dang near impossible) for me to ever agree with Gringo-Loco.

But I think he is spot on with this one. Obama is not a Muslim. And he is the legitimate, born in the U.S.A President. When ever I hear anyone begin down the path that he is anything other than that, I cringe.

I'm thinking that somewhere in the conversation we will get to hear about how the guy has a real life picture of Big Foot that he is just waiting to show his Alien buddies when they come back to pick him up this weekend. It's garbage.

And Santorum should have shut it down just as soon as it started. There is no place for it. To not stand up to it is cowardice.

Obama is a U.S. Citizen. He is a Christian. He is not a Muslim sympathizer who is trying to undermine American or sell it down the river in some covert deal. But he is also a very crappy President with little or no leadership skills. Our country has declined further since he has been in office on almost every single measure from the economy, to world standing, to education, to the environment, to unemployment, to general satisfaction of the government. Opposing his second term is fine. But do it with facts and not non-sense.