Your thoughts on the State of the Union address and GOP responses?

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

If anyone missed it or the GOP responses, here's a link to it on C-SPAN: http://www.c-span.org/Events/President-Obama39s-State-of-the-Union-Address/10737419121/

Some of the main points of the SOU was that Obama said we need to invest/spend more in education and renewable energy. Obama also proposed that the tax code be reformed. That could basically mean reducing income and corporate tax rates and eliminating the massive system of deductions in the tax code, simplifying the system, but threatening the deductions for many people and special interest groups.

Obama also proposed to freeze the federal government's budget for 5 years. Does this contradict his pledge to spend/invest more on education and renewable energy? Is there enough seriousness on both sides of the aisle to reform the tax code, simplify it, lower some rates, leave others alone and take away deductions?

What about Paul Ryan's GOP response? Ryan painted a gloomy picture of the US government's finances, but he doesn't mention that in his plan, he would drastically cut taxes on wealthier Americans, thereby gutting the funding for Medicare and Medicaid, and that he favors privatizing Social Security (aka putting Social Security into the stock market). Was it honest for him to omit that? Would the Republican Presidential nominee and Congressional Republicans dare run on Paul Ryan's economic plans in the 2012 election?

Ryan's plan drastically reduces taxes:

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/summary.htm


- Simplifies tax rates to 10 percent on income up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for single filers; and 25 percent on taxable income above these amounts. Also includes a generous standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four).

- Eliminates the alternative minimum tax [AMT].

- Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also eliminates the death tax.

- Replaces the corporate income tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized world – with a border-adjustable business consumption tax of 8.5 percent. This new rate is roughly half that of the rest of the industrialized world.

[Mike]

As I re-read President Obama’s speech I sensed that his overall objective was to inspire us to rise above partisanship. A hallmark of the President's approach is to state the commonalities that exist, and to appeal to his opponents’ sense of an over-arching mission. In this regard, his speech was true to his style (and something about which I admire him.) He utilized many of the tried and true techniques that his predecessors have utilized in SOTU speeches. He reminded us of our history, our traditions and heritage--and the bright prospects for our future along with the challenges to make it a reality. In the style of leadership he sought to inspire not just his fellow politicians but also all of us. I support his appeals for bipartisan cooperation, his statements about education, innovation, and a "roll-up-the-sleeves" approach to the economy. I’m a supporter of President Obama, but I’m not optimistic that his speech will prove to have been anything approaching an impetus for changing the status quo between the two parties.

As for the GOP response, I felt it typified why I mentioned above that I don’t think the President’s speech will make any difference. The GOP response began with what I perceived as obligatory (and empty) niceties. From there, however, it immediately focused upon the past and sought to contrast (to the GOP’s hoped advantage) the differences between the two sides of the aisle. It amounted to a tired effort to mark President Obama's efforts as "failure" in a way that Ryan hoped would advertise for his own side. In this way, it was little more than a salvo to offset anything the President sought--in short it was no surprises and no “disappointments.”

I’m sorry to say so, but my reaction to the event was a sigh and a yawn.

[discuss]

I wanted to view the SOU address but when I looked online and saw it was an hour, i said forget about it. These televised speeches are nothing more than meaningless rhetoric. The same old we're-great-Americans-with-a-proud-past nonsense. Why waste your time with watching it?

I did check out Ryan's response (since it was only 10 minutes) along with some silly Republican congresswoman at the New York Times website. Both of them spoke the same routine their party has been telling the public for a while now. They are dishonest to not give us the full picture as Du Bois mentioned. I don't trust Ryan. He also distorted whats going on in Europe. He said something about how because Europe has social programs, they are now caving in, i.e. we wouldn't want to go in that direction with things like healthcare. That's one of the comments I was thinking of when I posted a thread about the nature of social programs in Europe.

Regarding Obama, I disagree with Mike's position. The whole reaching out across the aisle thing has been one of Obama's biggest weaknesses. The Republicans keep slapping that hand every time he puts it out. They are not interested in compromising. Not only have they been obstructionist, they have even questioned whether he is a fit leader on many occasions. What Obama needs to do is keep his campaign promises and use the Democratic majority in the Senate to push through real reforms. The Progressives in his party need to take the lead. Until there is a clear contrast shown by the Democrats between what they are really trying to do and the fact that the Republicans have no plans to help main street, the Democrats will continue to be on the defensive. I have been very disappointed with Obama's weakness and compromise. I think as an individual he can do better than that. However, he's surrounded himself with people who he relies on to make decisions for him who shouldn't be there. I was suspicious as soon as he started hiring his staff two years ago. This is change, I asked? All the old Democrats from the Clinton years came back!

[discuss]

Anyone want to add anything?

[Mike]

Anyone want to add anything?When you said that you disagree with my position, I have to wonder whether your alternative is possible in the current political climate. The Democratic majority in the Senate is slim, and I don't know that it's necessarily sufficient. Nor am I convinced that President Obama still enjoys the same level of popular support that he had in the beginning. I reminds me of President Bush' perception of a mandate from the American people and his subsequent inability to "push through" the reforms he sought with Social Security. If President Bush couldn't do it with a Republican majority in Congress then, how much more difficult we can anticipate it to be for President Obama now without a House majority on his "side" and with only a small majority in the Senate. That's the practical side of my position.

The idealist side of my position remains in admiration of the art of compromise as a means of obtaining what in the long run is best for everyone. As I mentioned above, President Obama no longer seems to enjoy a majority of popular opinion--the reasons for that aside. If a large number of Americans have differing views right now, perhaps compromise is the more intelligent approach.

[discuss]

The problem is Republicans aren't compromising, only attacking.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Regarding Obama, I disagree with Mike's position. The whole reaching out across the aisle thing has been one of Obama's biggest weaknesses. The Republicans keep slapping that hand every time he puts it out. They are not interested in compromising. Not only have they been obstructionist, they have even questioned whether he is a fit leader on many occasions. What Obama needs to do is keep his campaign promises and use the Democratic majority in the Senate to push through real reforms. The Progressives in his party need to take the lead. Until there is a clear contrast shown by the Democrats between what they are really trying to do and the fact that the Republicans have no plans to help main street, the Democrats will continue to be on the defensive. I have been very disappointed with Obama's weakness and compromise. I think as an individual he can do better than that. However, he's surrounded himself with people who he relies on to make decisions for him who shouldn't be there. I was suspicious as soon as he started hiring his staff two years ago. This is change, I asked? All the old Democrats from the Clinton years came back!

I do not think progressives should take the lead of the Democratic Party. I think Progressives are a menace to themselves, much like the Tea Party are a menace to themselves and the Republican Party. I support nearly all of what Obama has done. I think his mistakes have been tactical and on policy level errors. For example, I would fault Obama for:

* Not making the stimulus package ALL tax cuts to the middle class/working class/poor and the rest going for aid to the state and local government. The infrastructure spending was a bad idea. It didn't go to the big projects that are really needed and take more time to plan.
* Cash for clunkers was dumb.
* Obama failed big time on not doing everything humanly possible to keep people in their homes and defaulting on their mortgages. If you have a job and if your spouse has a job and you live in a reasonably priced home, the government should have gotten loans to those people at affordable interest rates. No need to allow people with jobs to lose their homes and all the devastation that inflicts on the rest of the communities they live in (i.e. crime, lower property values, loss of local income, damaged housing and construction markets)

Those are policy level mistakes. I think overall though, the direction of Obama has been good and the center-left approach has been good. I am highly critical and disapproving of the far left approach.

The far left has approached the level of delusion of the Tea Party.

* The far left says: get the public option. However, they simply ignored how unpopular it was in the home states of several senators (Nelson, Landrieu, Pryor, Lincoln) and perhaps other. Progressive simply ignored how easy it would have been for just one Democratic senator to say no and thus sink the entire bill. Progressives said Johnson did it, so can Obama. Johnson had a significantly larger majority in the Senate to play with, and the country had no deficit and no recession at the time. Why not look at Kennedy? Even JFK could not get anything passed when he was alive. Maybe doing what Johnson did was abnormal and exceptional and not so easy as progressives assume.

All I would say is take a look at the Tea Party's approach and attitude and ask how different it is from the Progressives.

No compromise, you're not going far enough. DESTROY the moderates. Moderation is a sin, it's not an actual political ideology. Don't worry about electability, the far ______ (fill in left or right) knows best, the voters will see the light. Dance with who brung ya. If you fail, it's because you didn't go far enough.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I had second thoughts about Mr. discuss. I was annoyed by being lied on like that, especially in such a ham-fisted way. I have banned him. All posts relating to that have been dumped. (http://politicalforum.net/showthread.php?610-quot-You-re-either-easily-pleased-or-essentially-conservative-quot)