BECKLEY— Obama’s State of the Union defines exactly who Obama is and what he stands for. Listen, read, watch Obama’s speech in context of his actions and you will see who he is. Read his plans that are only populist talking points and you will see it for the drivel that it was. The following is my analysis as I went through the speech.
He started out with a focus on negative moments in our history discussing our issues with past racial inequality, military defeats, and economic crisis.
Quickly he moves into how all the problems we are currently having he “inherited”. Then he quickly pretends how his “aggressive action” has gotten us past the “worst of the storm” even though things are just as bad (worse actually) then before his aggressive action. Just today it was reported that nearly a half a million more people filed for initial unemployment.
Then Obama begins to try and pretend he understands.
“For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn’t, or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.
They’re tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can’t afford it, not now.”
—CNN.com
But he doesn’t understand because it’s not like it seems Wall Street has been rewarded – they have in FACT been rewarded. Good behavior, however, like hard work are punished by Mr. Obama’s tax hikes and continued low interest rates are discouraging savings. So, I don’t think he get’s it. Furthermore, for him to lecture on pettiness while blaming past administrations for all his current problems is petty. Perhaps he was speaking of a president calling out a cop for his actions – that’s not petty after all. Partisanship! What conservative ideals has him or his party considered and adopted over the last year??? Perhaps tax increases, UAW support, government spending, health care reform, or cap-and-trade are some of the conservative ideals they’ve been reaching across the aisle on!
The silly speech didn’t stop there.
And if there’s one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans — and everybody in between — it’s that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. I hated it. I hated it.
If you hated it then why did you vote for it? Jeez. You’d think if something was so bad you wouldn’t do it. He compared it to a root canal which doesn’t make any sense – a root canal removes a problem. I guess Obama doesn’t understand the difference between removing a problem and covering up a problem with new shiny smile.
Then comes the biggest lie of them all…
“Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes.”
Um…Obama has raised taxes. That is a simple fact. The federal government would collect less money this year then if he hadn’t raised taxes on the top 5% of income earners. Further, he’s proposing new taxes…
“I’ve proposed a fee on the biggest banks.”
Who will pass that tax on to the American people.
The strangeness continues with comments like the following:
“And we’re on track to add another 1.5 million jobs to this total by the end of the year.”
We lost 470,000 jobs last month so he’s moving in the wrong direction to start. I guess if he pretends like a half a million people aren’t losing their jobs every month then we’re ok…
And of course he goes on and on about ARRA, which has been blogged about here before as completely a waste.
Then he starts with his future solutions. First, up is financial reform which he offers absolutely NO explanation of what he means by this other then make more information available. In the information age this is kind of redundant but I guess he needs to say something about finance. Second, is innovation (particularly energy) for which we need a new bill to help it (probably a veiled refrence at more taxes in the form of cap-and-trade). Third, increase exports this will be done apparently by magic because their is no other explanation. Fourth, education will be improved by only rewarding improvement. Fifth, health care reform. We need it because only the government can save us and we need to strengthen government programs (i.e. “Medicare”) and stop those “abuses” by evil (i.e. “insurance”) privately owned companies.
Then he discuss $20 billion in budget cuts pretending that he’s a small government guru because $20 billion sounds like a lot until you put it beside trillions in deficits.
Then he saves his attack for the Supreme Court because how dare they allow people to influence elections when they are in association under a corporation. Those evil corporations! Obama get’s to blame two groups for our problems and future problems in that tirade.
Then comes the real big issue – security. Obama asks us,
“Let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who’s tough.”
He’s apparently miffed at being labeled weak. But when we’ve had more and more failures and attacks since he took office this sounds a little like whining to me.
His speech meanders on through much nonsense. Discussing issues like the importance of hate crimes which is about as stupid as it gets because their is no love crime or apathy crime or sad crime, etc. But he has to bring it up because American’s like to hate and discriminate I guess. He’s not real clear on what he’s getting at by this point in the speech. He really babbles on and on. Talking about things like.
“Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers.”
In other words they need to go after the things that matter like health care reform, tax hikes, cap-and-trade, increased spending, and they need to tell the hard truths and point and blame the past for all of their problems even more. Even if it costs them the elections, finally -something to applaud at.
He then ends his speech with with some poetic nonsense and a good old God Bless America.
Overall, his speech was long and full of untruths that I’m sure FactCheck.org will be ripping apart within a few days. It was filled with blame, empty rhetoric, pointless meandering. The speech was about Obama coming to save us. It was a great speech for Obama. This State of the Union highlighted who Obama is and what Obama stands for when one looks at his words in the context of his actions. This speech had virtually NO real substance his plans were followed by odd meanderings and were not plans but populist key words – nothing more.
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
I didn’t watch it. I have a strong stomach, but I suspect that that speech might have been too much for even me to hold down my dinner.
I learned last night that I am in the 5% of Americans that didn’t get a tax break. I noticed my federal taxes increase this year from all previous years.
I guess that makes me elite? So I should expect to shoulder the burden of all of his plans then as well…
“not now” I would like to see a montage of Obama saying this in his speeches. He has had to say it a lot this year. It was good when it was throttling previous administrations by saying things such as “we have delayed these thing long enough, but not now”. Granted, I think that has turned to a different song and dance now when not talking in the State of the Union and is normally done by saying “I can’t fulfill that promise I made not now”. Just ask the gays about their issues and Obama taking them on.
Just a point that this man loves his little phrases and they are as empty as anything he ever says – I am glad that he is gone by 2012. Not that anything will really change, just a different flavor of excrement flowing from the top.
To be fair, I can’t help but to point out that factcheck.org has already released their analysis:
“This time Republicans merely scoffed and grumbled at some of Obama’s statements. And while we found Obama strained the facts or cited uncertain statistics at times, we uncovered nothing we could show to be false.”
I, personally, am no fan of either Democrats or Republicans. They’re all the same to me. While I respect your feelings about this current administration and our national troubles, some of the attacks focused on Obama seem rather exaggerated. Although Obama’s remarks about the mess he inherited lacked diplomacy and tact, would you admit that there is some truth to his contentions? I would point to the Iraq War as the single most significant screw up in recent history and the primary source of our massive deficits. But please don’t get me wrong…Democrats and Republicans alike are responsible for that.
Thanks,
Thor
FactCheck, adds the following issues to my analysis.
I’m not a big fan of Republican’s either. I voted for a Democrate for State Governor here in W.Va. last election and I voted independent for President. I voted a mixed ticket mostly non-incumbant last election.
However, I don’t think I’m to hard on Obama. He is a bad leader. He is by quite literally a modern replica of Cleon – a demagogue! I not really sure where I’ve exaggerated. At least with the main contention that he is full of it. He made no specific plans what-so-ever. He criticizes pettiness and yet blames the past for everything while offering ZERO plans for the future. Just blank words such as better economy…better school…better inovation.
I can say, “Follow me and I will lead you to the land of milk and honey.” It doesn’t mean I can. I can say, “I can cure all forms of disease.” It doesn’t mean I can. Obama is doing this. He’s saying, I can fix the economy! I can make education better! I can save our health!
As for the Iraq war I know Paul and BaldMan will agree with you on that one. Not me, I think we should be in Iraq. We should be planning on being in Iran and Syria. We should be putting serious pressure on China to break North Korea. I think we need to be much more heavy handed! We are at the moment the only superpower. What would Rome have done if some tribe disrespected them and did something like a terrorist attack. They’d have rolled over them completely. You don’t stay number one by giving the competition a chance. Unless they decide to partner with you and become a team player.
I think one of the sole purposes of the federal government is to have a strong military! As for the Iraq war it costs about what $50 billion annually? The deficit is what 1.9 trillion? You’re looking at about 3% of the deficit there. As for a percentage of total spending we spend what? 2.6 trillion? So, that’s only like 2%. Not bad for a war. Sure it could probably be done cheaper! But not bad if you ask me. The whole Iraq war is causing the deficit is a bit extreme to me.
The fact that we spend more on military spending the the next 15 countries combined makes me PROUD. Spending cuts should come to everything else before the military.
That’s one thing I agree with Obama on. I’m glad he’s not spending freezing the military.
The Iraq war has averaged $93 Billion a year through 2010. Afghanistan has averaged $30 Billion a year. Total cost of the Iraq war has been $747B, Afghanistan $300B. The two wars combined have cost a little over $1T and averaged $128B annually.
Basically, the total cost of the Iraq war over an eight year period was less than the Stimulus bill.
primary source of our massive deficits
This would be the case if we were back in 2007, but the deficit is at 1.3 trillion. The $800 billion stimulus would play a larger roll in deficits than either of the wars. Or the 15%-20% across the board increase in departmental spending that occured in 2009 coupled with an economy in a recession.
According to this: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
the two wars will account for one tenth of the 2010 deficit. Hardly enough to declare it “primary”
I thought you were against the Iraq war? I guess on different grounds outside the spending issue though, right?
FT: For or against this war is irrelevant in this statement. Fact is, the war isn’t the primary cause of the current deficits.
As I hope I made clear below. You’re right, I was wrong about defense spending being the primary cause of the budget deficit.
Thor: Yeah I saw that. No worries. FT and I have this thing… he has a desire to preemptively annihilate all non-americans for looking at the country wrong. I tend to think not…
Yes, I’m a cold hearted SOB.
I just don’t trust most Muslims, they haven’t earned it as I’ve pointed out in great detail. I think they are a serious threat as a religious and cultural (if you can call it that) movement. Until they change some of their fundamental doctrines I think they are as much a threat as Modern Marxism and “enlightened” Europe – if not more so. Maintaining a military presence in the heart of the Middle East gives us an edge in terms of military strategy.
fearsome. just fearsome.
Paul,
Good job. You’re right about the stimulus package. It was costly and not very effective, to say the least. I can only hope that Obama is correct about continuing returns on that investment. The total amount of war allocations listed on the link you posted comes to 1.05 trillion. The national debt is 11 or 12 trillion. The deficit in FY09 was 1.75 trillion. It will be 1.17 trillion in FY10. So it looks to be going down if this link is right:
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt_Deficit.htm
I should have been more careful about my use of the term deficit. Perhaps discussing debt would have been better.
Freedom Fighter,
Rome fell. Well over a half million people have died in our foreign wars since 2001. Over six thousand were coalition service men and women. Can you imagine the amount of human suffering associated with those numbers? These are real people with real families. I think we’d better start using our heads instead of our guns. We might be a “superpower,” but we don’t own the world.
Thor
I suppose that “strained the facts” and “cited uncertain statistics at times” could not be construed as “false” (lies ?), but I would personally view such verbal gymnastics as ethically suspect at the least.
After a year in office, it is time for Obama to admit ownership for the problems that our country continues to battle and that his “solutions” have not improved – the serial attempts to avoid blame by castigating the prior administration continue to define his inability to lead.
FT has pretty much illuminated the faults in Obama’s speech. Perhaps some day most of the people who were mislead by empty rhetoric and elected this “empty suit” will recognize his deficiencies and hidden agendas and understand the mistake that they have made. Or perhaps it will take the collapse of our economic system and/or another disastrous terrorist attack to lift the protective curtain that Obama and the sycophantic media have constructed.
After a year in office
I recall all the lines “the presidency is bigger than one man.” It’s an office. The office is “responsible” regardless of who has the chair. Hence the phrase “the buck stops here.” Yet Mr. Obama is president pass-the-buck. I guess it’s his rallying call for his base when he screws up or fails to fulfill a promise… “don’t blame me, I didn’t do it.”
By the way, December saw no U.S. deaths in Iraq and the Iraqi government continues to assume a growing share in the battle against insurgents. “The single most significant screw up in recent history and the primary source of our massive deficits”? Overlooking the “stimulus” bill, TARP, Cash for Clunkers?
Rome did indeed fall, but not before a lengthy decline resulting from corruption, softness, destructive politics and ethical and moral lapses that came to define their culture.
Maine,
Although you’re right about much of what you said in regards to Rome, I will argue that the primary cause of Roman decline was the expansion of the empire beyond all manageable boundaries through militarism and conquest. As far as screw ups go, I’d rather see someone screw up attempting to invest in the economy domestically than investing in foreign wars that don’t have a meaningful impact on national security. (I know you’ll probably lambaste me on that comment, but let’s face it…Bin Laden still lives and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and no WMD’s). I think cash for clunkers and the tax breaks for first time home buyers were good initiatives. I know people that wouldn’t have been able to buy homes and transportation without those incentives. The stimulus bill was much too big, but it was an effort to address our economic problems here at home.
Chuck,
I see your post below and feel that I could write a book in response. You should know that I am also a vet, although I opted not to make a career of the military in the hopes that I could better support my family from the private sector. Defining “Just War” is not an easy thing to do. I am not opposed to a strong defense, but I do feel that our venture into Iraq was reckless. This is an extremely complex subject. For every example a person could come up with to justify that military action, another example could be provided that would highlight U.S. failures to follow up on all possible opportunities for peace. I do not, nor will I ever, disrespect service men and women, and I would argue that strong diplomatic efforts are in the best interests of soldiers and their families. I will give your post another read and see if I can muster the strength to form a good reply. By the way, I’m not a pacifist and, like I mentioned in another post, I don’t understand the way the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are being used in today’s context. I consider myself to be a conservative. I think war in Iraq was a radical move. I felt better about Afghanistan when Bin Laden was still there. I felt that Desert Storm, which occurred during my time in the military, was justified to a large degree as well. Bush Sr.’s decision not to invade Iraq was prudent yet was ignored by his son and his handlers for reasons that have prompted incredible amounts of speculation and writing over the last 10 years.
Thanks,
Thor
I should add that I would take what some might consider a “liberal” stance on some issues associated with societal and cultural issues. NOT on defense though. I have a tough time finding examples of the existence of liberals in government. Most are moderates that only sound like liberals when they’re trying to energize their base supporters.
Thor
…Bin Laden still lives and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and no WMD’s…
…Bush Sr.’s decision not to invade Iraq was prudent yet was ignored by his son and his handlers…
Without regard to my personal position on the necessity of Iraq these two comments to me seem rather narrow. As I understood the justification for the war in Iraq it was not related to cause of 9/11 (i.e. Saddam didn’t implement the 9/11 attacks). It was rooted in the widely held belief that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror and that according to UN and international reports dating back to the first Gulf War, Iraq had in its position WMDs. There were something like 13 Union Resolutions stating as much and demanding he verify their destruction and were the basis for the Food-for-Oil program.
Now, granted it appears Saddam didn’t have WMDs. But this goes to the second statement I quoted above. As I understood it, and agreed with the notion, 9/11 changed everything. Hence the reason W would not view the situation the same as Sr.
I’m still not sold that Iraq was necessary. But I do not give credence to the following reasons it was not: “It created more terrorists”, “Bush Lied about WMDs”, “It’s all about Oil”, “W was avenging attacks on his father.” and there are many more, but I don’t have the time.
Thor,
Hate to be the one asking the obvious questions but here it goes:
1. Is it possible that the deaths of 500 thousand over the past 9 years somehow limited US, Coalition, and innocent civilian deaths? Isn’t it possible that this loss, though tragic, resulted in a greater good for mankind?
2. Have you ever pondered the 6,000 number in relation to other statisics?
Tragic as they are, if you spread the 6,000 Coalition casualties over the conflict you get roughly – 670 Coalition war related deaths per year.
Compare this to other wars we have fought:
– Revolutionary War 25,00 dead/2,800 per year
– Mexican-American War 13,283 dead/4,400 per year
– Civil War 623,000 dead/125,000 per year
– WW2 407,316 dead/81,400 per year
– Korean War 36,914 dead/ 9,200 per year
– Viet Nam 58,169 dead/ 5,800 per year
Notice, above I compare Iraqi Coalition numbers to historical US numbers ONLY, and do not include our allies. So, in reality the numbers are much larger. Note: I do not count the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler either.
Finally, with regard to numbers, I think it is relevant to note that more people die each year in the US from illicit drug overdoses (17,000 per year) than in combat in Iraq.
So the fact is, though every death is tragic, Iraq has been a fairly low cost war in terms of American blood. If you consider the fact that we have liberated 28 million Iraqis, stopped a genocidal Taliban regime from slitting innocent throats in soccer stadiums and stoning women, and killed many thousands of terrorists looking to murder Americans, I would contend that, as you put it, “our” war has been just and successful.
3. In your mind is there a just reason for war? If so, what is it? I have served 21 years and participated in two of “our” wars. I can tell you that without some type of “just conflict” there would be no such thing a human freedom or dignity in this world. History will support me here by the way.
4. (related question) You speak of “using our heads” what exactly do you mean here? Are you suggesting that there were no diplomatic efforts prior to our 2001 conflicts? Are you denying almost 12 years of effort to get Iraq to comply with UN sanctions? Are you suggesting that most of the free world did not, at one time, attempt to negotiate with Saddam over that 12 year period? Are you suggesting that if we had held on a few years longer, say another 10, that he would have become a nice guy? If you are, you must have been asleep for a decade. Where do you suggest we missed the cerebral boat?
5. You seem to equate war with great losses of life, but isn’t it true that the greatest losses of life in history were actually politically driven and supported by a large portion of the populace? I refer you to Stalin (20,000,000 murdered), Chairman Mao (25,000,000 murdered), Hitler (6,000,000 jews and undesirables – would have been far greater without the war). These are only some of the worst, I could name many more.
Certainly war is tragic and results in many horrors and injustices, but we cannot only look at the costs of war, we must also look at the historical result. Ben Franklin’s “Peace at any price,” is a ridiculous hypothesis and he did not even really believe it.
The problem with many pacifists and liberals is that they look only at the cost. This is only once side of the equation.
By the way, T-Paul has a great point. What if it was “all about oil?” Would that make it unjust?
What if it was “all about oil?” Would that make it unjust?
Considering we just went over there, spent $750B lost thousands of lives and the Chinese ended up with all the oil deals? Unjust? Just plane not right.
But I don’t think the US, GwB, Rumsfeld, Chenney, Rove or any other pop-culture boogie man concocted the war and invasion for the purpose of getting oil. After 9/11, I think it was all a matter of viewing previously known threats in a different light. The thinking at the time was to remove the threat. I would have opted for increased focus on defense spending and R&D…. maybe lob a few more monica bombs at ‘em… just for good measure
T-Paul,
I guess, my question is: Is oil a valid reason to go to war? Sure it costs a lot, and people get killed, but we could say that about any war for any reason. What would be the implications of a world-wide oil shortage though? How would that impact our national security and quality of life? What would it do to our economy? How would it impact the developing world?
I have read several plausible World War scenarios and oil is a major catalyst in each of them. It may not be the reason the war starts, but it is certainly the reason that it ultimately escalates.
If OPEC went rogue and cut of the oil supplies for the US and Europe, would there be justified arguments for going to take it?
We always hear the “we went to war for oil” argument from critics of our action in SWA, but couldn’t oil be as legitimate of a reason to go to war as invasion or terror? I would contend that it could impact our way of life far greater than 9/11 did.
Just my musings on the issue.
“If OPEC went rogue and cut of the oil supplies for the US and Europe, would there be justified arguments for going to take it?”
My position would be no. I would say we were at fault for not being aptly prepared. But it’s a moot point, we have 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil within the US, five times the amount of oil in Saudi Arabia. If any oil shortage arose, oil prices would increase making shale oil marketable. The only thing the US would need to fear then is environmentalist prohibiting drilling.
But I don’t think war is justified if it is only to confiscate the possessions and resources of others. The owner of the possession has the right to set the price as high as they wish and sell to whomever they wish. A successful business doesn’t discriminate but retains the right to do just that.
Not sure that Shale Oil technology is ready for the full production volumes needed to supply our nation and sell to our allies. My understanding is that you have to put a lot of heaters in the ground and heat up massive oil shale fields for a few years before they really start producing. That infrastructure just is not there to my knowledge. In fact I do not think anyone has ever proven it will work for production level quantities. Could be that the energy in would be greater than the energy out.
Also, we consume about 21 million barrels of oil a day. Our strategic reserves would last us about a month. A severed oil artery to the US would shut us down pretty darn fast. What do we do then?
Again, I really believe that oil would send more nations to war, including the US, than we care to admit.
I agree with you by the way, it is truly a crisis situation that we have put ourselves in. The only security we have is that, for now, producing nation need our money more than they need their oil…
My understanding of the shale oil is, it is too expensive to extract, but can be extracted. Much like alternative eneregy, it isn’t economically viable right now. But, if things change, some country or organization moves to jack up the prices of energy, all of these other sources become competitive. I think the means to accomplish extraction and delivery would be found quickly. Other than that, I think ANWAR would be drilled like crazy in such an event. Same with off-shore drilling. Our resources here would be re-examined, much to the disappointment of the Sierra Club I’m sure.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the US or any nation would go to war over oil. (we already found that the French and many other nations were cheating the oil-for-food system) But I still don’t think that was thinking behind the invasion of Iraq. Nor do I think that it is a valid justification of war.
Agreed.
Thor,
Good arguments re: Rome, but I do feel that dissipation, corruption and lack of will were the major contributions to Rome’s collapse. Admittedly, their supply channels were overextended and administration to the far-flung empire was too tenuous, but rot always originates from within.
I am another career military guy and we will probably just agree to disagree over Iraq. I believe that America has far better served the cause of world peace and prosperity through our actions since WWI then to cause disruption and chaos, but certainly arguments can be made on either side.
The aggressive forces of Islam are more a danger to to the world than American hegemony, in my opinion. Certainly I believe that no other nation has stood up to aggression and attempts at world dominance while at the same time contributing so much relief to world disasters.
Unfortunately we are not perfect and the life that we enjoy inspires jealousy on the part of many other countries.