State of the Union Address

[hotatlboi]

Unemployment was 7% when Obama took office. Today it's 10%.

The economy was hemorrhaging jobs and dollars at a huge rate a year ago. Things are relatively more stable now. Still not good, but not plummeting anymore.

We're starting to turn the corner.

 

[NickCole]

Not from where I'm sitting.

Jobs picture is better.

You like graphs? Here's a fun one:

Unemployment is much worse than a year ago, we're still losing jobs and jobs have been lost that aren't coming back.

Housing is showing signs of recovering.

It's still worse than it was a year ago, it's continued to deterioriate. Further, forecasts are for it to continue deteriorating this year. Claiming any kind of success when it's still getting worse is pathetic.

Home prices in 20 major cities declined 5.3 percent in November 2009 from a year earlier, a significant improvement over the 13.3 annual drop posted in July, according to the most recent S&P/Case-Shiller home price report. The figures, released Tuesday, represent the third month in a row of single-digit declines following 20 consecutive months of double-digit drops. But a number of factors—including the effects of a federal tax credit, still-elevated home inventories, and the prospect of higher mortgage rates threaten to drag home prices lower from here. "On balance, while these data do show that home prices are far more stable than they were a year ago, there is no clear sign of a sustained, broad-based recovery," David Blitzer, the chairman of the index committee at Standard & Poor's, said in a statement.

http://www.usnews.com/money/article...e-further-but-more-drops-may-be-in-store.html

The market has recovered some.

The market isn't the economy. We all know Wall Street banks and bankers are richer. But also the market's been sliding again.

Plenty of other indicators are saying the situation is improving. Not out of the woods yet but getting there.

Which "plenty of other indicators"? List them. Nothing you listed so far is improved from a year ago.

Oh please. The obstructionist Republicans are to blame for that, not Obama.

What did they obstruct? Not one single Republican voted for the Senate bill and it passed. No obstruction. That's just another bullshit whine from ObamaNation. Dems have had control of WH and both Houses of Congress for a year, could pass legislation without a single Republican vote. You can't obstruct anything if your vote isn't needed to pass legislation.

Um, we would have faced the same things he is facing now (hearings, discussion with military leaders etc) regardless of when it was done.

Could have been done by now. When we had a filibuster proof majority. But it isn't even started.

Yeah, and isn't it great that we have a president who actually support equal rights for gays? Unlike the guy you voted for.

I'm not impressed with what politicians say, it's what they do that shows what they really support or oppose. And you don't know who I voted for; why do you make up things to attack people?

 

[NickCole]

The economy was hemorrhaging jobs and dollars at a huge rate a year ago. Things are relatively more stable now. Still not good, but not plummeting anymore.

We're starting to turn the corner.

No doubt Obama will say nonsense along those lines tomorrow night.

Your characterization is misleading.

Unemployment is WORSE today, by far, than it was a year ago. We're still losing jobs. And many more people have given up looking for jobs. The real unemployment rate is over 17%.

If we're turning a corner I wouldn't bet on what's around the bend. With Obama in the driver's seat Americans better keep their seatbelt fastened.

 

[chuck10x]

Not from where I'm sitting.

Jobs picture is better.

Housing is showing signs of recovering.

http://www.nasdaq.com/newscontent/2...de5a-dfa9-4581-b955-717f667c69f9_fxstreet.com

The market has recovered some.

Plenty of other indicators are saying the situation is improving. Not out of the woods yet but getting there.

Unemployment is still 10%, The people who are finding work are taking a significant pay cut, The ones who can't find work no longer count.
No one is hiring,Even Walmarts-Sams Club -has cut 11,000 jobs just this past week.
The reason lay-offs has slowed is because there is no one left to get rid of short of closing up.
Housing has shown signs of recovery Due to the Federal tax credit which was to expire this past December, People in the market bought houses to take advantage of the tax credit- Watch the housing market slump again once it expires.
A far better indicator is the foreclosure rate.
The situation will never improve until the jobs come back and by then people will be so far in debt it will be at least 5 years until things get back to normal.

 

[hotatlboi]

Nothing you listed so far is improved from a year ago.

You missed the entire point. I said we are starting to see signs of recovery. Obviously we've fallen further from a year ago because a year ago we were nearer the beginning of this recession. We've started to see the end of the downturn. That's why your "Obama has failed on economic recovery" is such bullshit. Given how bad this recession was, there is no possible way recovery could have come any faster.

No obstruction.

I'm sorry but that's so absurd I can't even begin to deal with it.

 

[NickCole]

You missed the entire point. I said we are starting to see signs of recovery. Obviously we've fallen further from a year ago because a year ago we were nearer the beginning of this recession.

You just keep making it up as you go along, shamelessly pretending you said something you didn't.

What you said was:

"Um, it makes more sense now then when the debate occurred during the campaign. The economy hasn't fully recovered but it is better than it was then."

We've started to see the end of the downturn. That's why your "Obama has failed on economic recovery" is such bullshit.

You are wrong.

As the link I posted above reports, indicators are the housing market will deterioriate further this year. Also foreclosures will continue and Obama's foreclosure program is insufficient:

The high level of foreclosures plaguing the country will get worse before it gets better, according to a report that found that mortgage relief being offered to distressed borrowers is not keeping up with the need.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012004918.html

That's not the end of the downturn.

As for jobs, the only reason layoffs have diminished is because there aren't many more people to lay off. People are working more for less, and those are the ones lucky enough to still have a job. For it to get better new jobs have to be created, which is what the stimulus bill should have done but, as I said at the time, it was bloated with non-job-producing spending, and even the jobs it financed were temporary rather than growth oriented. What I said is true, and I predicted a year ago it would happen: Obama has failed with economic recovery. He still has a chance to make it right but what's he doing? Calling for a spending freeze. He's in way over his head.

Given how bad this recession was, there is no possible way recovery could have come any faster.

You make up stuff based on kool aid and nonsense.

Of course it could have come faster if we'd had a President who led Congress to produce and pass a potent stimulus bill and other programs. We needed a President who'd avalanche Congress with jobs and recovery legislation along with banking regulation bills the way FDR did.

I'm sorry but that's so absurd I can't even begin to deal with it.

Uh huh.

Facts can be inconvenient when you try to paint someone a superior victim.

For a full year Democrats have had a large enough majority to pass legislation without a single Republican vote and enough to override a filibuster. No excuses. Explain exactly how Republicans obstructed legislation.

 

[evanrick]

Politics 300:

Many neo-cons do not deal in facts, only racist, sexist, or elitist religious ideology.

Why do they do this? Because they know the only way to get votes is to make enemies out of neighbors.

If voters actually understood how the neo-con agenda operates, nobody in their right mind would vote for them.

Classic examples of neo-con members, republican loyalists etc.. :

Anti-gay groups (just about every christian in the south)
White supremacists (KKK + NRA)
Anti-Black groups (the "Birthers")
Anti-government groups (tea partiers)
Anti-women (Hillary bashing etc)

Or as the "Old" John McCain called them "Agents of Intolerance" aka "Bush voters".

Even George Bush was ashamed to be associated with them, he used them for their votes, but never kept his promises to ban gay marriage via the constitution.

These are the people who have come to dominate the republican party.

Sure there are groups on both sides, but the far right is far far more extereme, more dangerous than any terrorist organization on this planet.

Now tell me Barack Obama won in a landslide because the American people knew better.

They rejected this dangerous karl-rove style politics that led our county to economic disaster, and now Republicans are pointing fingers like their hands are clean.

How soon we forget this is the Bush recession.

Remember this John McCain?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbNImNX8Xuw&feature=related[/ame]

 

[NickCole]

Obama loyalists keep trying to make Republicans the evil force and Obama the good one. It's really past the time you should have recognized that he's the same as them.

Paul Krugman, who's been a good cheerleader all year for Obama, finally figured it out this week.

...

We haven’t heard Obama’s SOTU yet. But the big news seems to be the spending freeze. What I hear from bat-squeaks is that it’s not a big deal on economic substance, and that admin officials hope it will clear the way for some modest job-creation efforts. We’ll see about that. Rhetorically, however, Obama is clearly, conspicuously endorsing his opponents’ world-view — which will buy him precisely nothing in return.

I don’t think I’m going to watch the SOTU; all indications are that it will be deeply, deeply depressing.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/a-tale-of-two-sotus/

 

[NickCole]

Wonder what the President will say tonight about Health Care Reform.

That was to be the signature legislation of whomever became Democratic President. Historic. Transformative for the nation's health care system.

Will he take responsibility for its failure, blame someone(s) else, lay out a bold new plan to insure that some kind of substantive HCR is enacted, dance a little sidestep?

Or something else?

 

[Jack Springer]

The executive branch of US government is independent of the legislative branch, unlike parliamentary democracies.

Your comment doesn't make any sense.

 

[Kulindahr]

Politics 300:

Many [STRIKE]neo-cons[/STRIKE] liberals do not deal in facts, only racist, sexist, or elitist religious ideology.

Why do they do this? Because they know the only way to get votes is to make enemies out of neighbors.

If voters actually understood how the [STRIKE]neo-con[/STRIKE]liberal agenda operates, nobody in their right mind would vote for them.

It's easy to do it the other way around. And there are plenty of examples to go with that reversal.

How soon we forget this is the Bush recession.

Is it?

Follow the legislation, and this recession belongs to people back as far as Carter, and on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your comment doesn't make any sense.

It does, in these days. The president is supposedly the leader of his party, but party loyalty isn't a common commodity now. The president can talk and talk, but it's the leaders in Congress who are the functional party leaders. If they don't stand with the president, his agenda means nothing. And even when the Congressional leaders are with the president, party loyalty still doesn't carry the day.

If it weren't for our clumsy, outdated "two-party system", we have four parties where two are: Liberal Democrats, Conservative Democrats, Republicans, and Religious-Freaks-Who-Think-God-Appointed-Them-to-Oppress-Unbelievers.

 

[Ddouble]

What can a president who has accomplished nothing during the past year possibly say in his State of the Union address? How can he turn a negative into a positive?

All he has to do is to remind the audience that he inherited the mess from the Bush administration and then convince the people that though things are bad, they would have been a lot worse if he hadn't been elected.

I'm waiting for him to say "My fellow Americans, the state of the union is strong!"

If he says that, anything else he says afterwards can be totally disregarded.

 

[NedNickerson]

All he has to do is to ...convince the people that though things are bad, they would have been a lot worse if he hadn't been elected.

 

[ChickenGuy]

It will make such a refreshing change not to have to put up with George W. Bush making this speech.

And even though I think nothing of substance will be said, I'm going to watch the whole thing.

Because this is the one occasion where Obama, briefly, will get the applause he deserves.

 

[Kulindahr]

It will make such a refreshing change not to have to put up with George W. Bush making this speech.

And even though I think nothing of substance will be said, I'm going to watch the whole thing.

Because this is the one occasion where Obama, briefly, will get the applause he deserves.

That will be interesting.

I don't think I've ever seen a State of the Union address where applause was deserved, unless I count the one after the Moscow Pact started coming apart and Reagan hailed it as a victory for freedom. But then he'd only done some pushing, and it was the people over there who demonstrated that government governs by the consent of the people, so I don't know if it should count or not.

 

[JB3]

That will be interesting.

I don't think I've ever seen a State of the Union address where applause was deserved, unless I count the one after the Moscow Pact started coming apart and Reagan hailed it as a victory for freedom. But then he'd only done some pushing, and it was the people over there who demonstrated that government governs by the consent of the people, so I don't know if it should count or not.

This one isn't any different. They're applauding for stupid crap, and wasting our time.

 

[JB3]

Solid B speech.

It would have been better had he excluded the partisan sniping and the shots at republicans. Last week's election in MA should have been a large, glaring warning that the public is fed up with that kind of language. Otherwise, it was a pretty good speech, even if there were glaring omissions and some blatant falsehoods.

 

[NedNickerson]

All he has to do is to remind the audience that he inherited the mess from the Bush administration and then convince the people that though things are bad, they would have been a lot worse if he hadn't been elected.[/quote]

Right! ..|

[B]From Obama's State of the Union address:[/B]

[quote]So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. 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. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. [B]That was before I walked in the door.[/B] [/quote]

 

[MidnightPrism]

It's interesting watching a nation implode.

It's quite a thrill ride.

The ignorant masses will continue to vote for the same corrupt parties. I'm excited to see what happens when everything comes crashing down.