The State of the Union thereof
I wasn’t going to write about the State of the Union address last night, but here goes nothing. As usual, President Obama gave a good speech. One can not deny how well he can speak. In spite of his swelling words however, there were some things in the speech that I did not agree with. I am not going to go through the speech line by line, but if you a much more detailed analysis of what the President had to say, you can visit Conservative Hideout 2.0 and read Matt’s wrap up.
First and foremost, he is still blaming George W. Bush every chance he gets and I am sick of hearing that come out of his mouth. It goes without saying that Bush failed in some areas, but not all of the troubles our country finds itself in are his fault. I think President Obama needs to listen to his own speech and realize how much it sounds like he is whining when he continues shifting the blame on Bush.
There were several things he said last night that are simply not the truth. The one thing that stood out to me was how he mentioned the banks paying back the money that was used to bail them out. He said they could afford to pay his new tax if they could afford to pay their executives large amounts of money in bonuses. Does he think we do not know that the larger banks have already paid that money back? Does he think that we pay so little attention to how this new tax will be implemented to not know that a lot of the banks and corporations who will be charged with paying this new tax never received a single penny in bailout money? For him to continue this push for this new tax in this manner is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worse.
During the campaign in 2008, candidate Barack Obama said he would implement earmark reform, if he were elected President. Yet when the stimulus package was passed, it contained around 9,000 earmarks. During his speech last night, he promised again to reform the earmark process, but after watching his first year in office, I can’t say I hold out much hope of that happening.
Over and over during the speech, he chided the Republicans for voting against his agenda. He scolded them for not being bipartisan enough to work through the process during the health care reform debate. Actually, some of them tried to work with the Democrats, but were locked out of the negotiations in the end. Plain and simple, the Democrats had an agenda they were trying to pass, the Republicans stood against it, and the President doesn’t like it. That is not unusual behavior for him, as he seems to like scolding people.
The President focused a lot on the economy and jobs last night. He wants Congress to pass a jobs bill, but there are no details on that as yet. If it is anything like the stimulus package that wasn’t a stimulus package, it will be loaded with earmarks. He has and is proposing the spending freeze that has already been discussed in another article, but the $250 billion that is projected to save over a ten-year period is a paltry sum. Given the propensity of Congress to include so many unrelated items in a single piece of legislation and Obama’s propensity of letting it happen, it promises to be a mixed up mess.
More and more, I am beginning to distrust this President. He tries to be all things to all people, promising things that he knows full well that he can not deliver. He tries to cover it all up with great, swelling words, but it’s starting to sound like the same old song and dance. The hope and change has not materialized and I have my doubts that it will during his term.
I will try to come back later with a more thorough and thoughtful response but I have one immediate comment for your consideration: if GOP leaders and conservative political pundits continue to spout the lie that the budget deficit is Obama’s fault without acknowledging the much greater contribution to our deficit of Bush administration policies then why isn’t it fair for Obama to defend his record by countering with the facts? That’s not passing the buck, that’s setting the record straight.
I am not saying President Obama should shoulder all of the blame for the deficit. Bush clearly did not contain spending as he should have done. However, it seems that the favorite line for Obama to use always has to do with what happened before he took office. He tries to convince us that his part of the budget deficit is not his fault and I do not think that is a true statement.
Larry,
To the budget deficit:
I agree, as does Obama himself, that this Administration has added to the deficit. The problem-and the reason Obama and others keep having to remind us all what happened-is that nothing he did was in a vacuum.
“Sick of the blame”. Agreed. I also am sick of the GOP continuing to act as if they were fiscally responsible, did not turn a surplus into a very large deficit, and that the deficit clock only began ticking when Obama took office.
Led by the GOP, many in our country would believe just that. It’s a neat trick of misdirection, but does absoultely nothing to reassure me that they wouldn’t continue down the same path (albeit spending on very different things) should the party regain power.
I think, setting politics aside, that it is absolutely imperative that we, as citizens, evaluate it all. Put it this way: If you’ve ever had to “right your own ship” through a budgetary crisis, did you only look at things that lay in front of your face at that moment, or did you evaluate everything you did that got you there in the first place? Imagine how much tougher it would be to solve a problem if you refused to look at all contributing factors.
Sadly, partisan politics and politicians whose jobs depend on the selective amnesia of their base, refuse to do this. And it isn’t the way grown ups solve problems.
I don’t think the Conservatives have forgotten the Republican’s failure to live up to their words when they were in power. It would be a mistake for the GOP to assume that they automatically have votes because people are simply upset with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Bush had the largest deficit in history in 2008. He also had a Democratic Congress to deal with as well. That was bad enough. However, it cannot change the fact that Obama tripled it in one year. When politicians play the blame game, it’s usually to cover what they are doing right now.
Matt:
Forgive me, but I get very annoyed when people echo the right wing talking points and say that Bush had a “Democratic” Congress, as if that were 1) largely the truth and 2) the reason for the deficit.
For the record, Bush and the GOP had 6 unfettered years in the majority to demonstrate even a modicum of fiscal restraint, either at the Executive legislative level. They did not. The Democratic majority in Congress came in Jan 2007. Still seemed to rubber stamp all the spending…
I hope you are right-that true Conservatives, not just those who care about social policy but are clueless with fiscal policy-will once again dominate the GOP. I’d like to see them work with Obama (a la the Clinton years) for some really good work. Our country is best when our government concentrates on that which government is charged to do in a restrained manner.
Laurie, It’s going to take more than Alinsky’s rule # 5 to discredit me. I take talking points from no one. No one is falling for that one anymore.
I don’t think this was one of his better speeches. He came of as scolding congress, there was an attitude there that was unusual for him. I found it lughable that he could actually say that the constant campaigning for re-election in congress has to stop– he hasn’t stopped campaigning– claiming that they needed to not worry about getting re-elected but doing what is right for the country. In other words “pass my agenda even if it means losing your jobs.”
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Barack Obama’s State of the Union snub
Larry – Correct my if I’m wrong here. You wrote, “Does he think that we pay so little attention to how this new tax will be implemented to not know that a lot of the banks and corporations who will be charged with paying this new tax never received a single penny in bailout money?”
I’m assuming you think these banks that will be taxed didn’t get a bailout. If I am understanding your statement correctly. If that is so, the Heritage Foundation is saying something different.
“The Bank Tax
President Obama tonight called for a new tax on banks and other large financial institutions, “a modest fee,” he said, “to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.” That sounds great, but in truth, the new tax would do nothing of the kind. Mr. Obama knows that almost every major bank has paid back their bailout funds, with interest. Taxpayers made substantial profits on those repayments.
On the other hand, most of the companies that still owe billions to taxpayers, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and auto firms GM and Chrysler would not be subject to the tax. In short, Mr. Obama would tax those that have paid back taxpayers, and exempt those who have not.
Mr. Obama also calls for “serious financial reform,” to “guard against the financial recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.” Again, that’s a nice sentiment, but most of his proposed reforms would do little or nothing of the kind. In fact, major parts of his proposals would only guarantee additional future bailouts, by treating some companies as “too big to fail,” and creating a resolution process for troubled financials that is so open-ended that it could be used in almost any situation. The better choice, ignored by the President in his speech, would be to amend U.S. bankruptcy law to create an open, expedited bankruptcy process in which an impartial court would oversee the restructuring or closure of large and complex financial firms.
- James Gattuso and David John”
If I’m understanding the Heritage Foundation, Obama is yet again going to tax the banks that did the right thing and paid the bailout money back, but those who didn’t pay the bailout money back and got to skate, get to skate again.
Is that what you take from the Heritage Foundation.
Here is the complete article for your perusal.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/27/reaction-roundup-heritage-responds-to-the-state-of-the-union/
Sorry for my delay in responding. I somehow lost the bookmark I had of your blog!
Dominique´s last blog ..Searching for my memory
From what I have learned about the bank tax, there are some banks who received bailout money and have paid back who will be taxed. Some who received no bailout money at all will be taxed. Here is the link to an article I did earlier on this.
http://www.ldjackson.net/news-politics/president-obama-wants-new-taxes-on-banks/
Thanks.
Dominique´s last blog ..Searching for my memory
Matt,
Nice job of emulating Alinsky yourself. Why bother speaking to the question at hand when you can throw out more rhetoric.
Did the GOP NOT have 6 years of unfettered rule? Yes or no.
OK, everyone, let’s take a look at what just happened here.
I mentioned that Bush had democratic Congress in 2008. They wrote the budget that he signed. This does not match the lefty paradigm of “blame Bush,” so Laurie had to discredit me by stating that I was spewing talking points. This is a typical liberal attack. They cannot prove their points with reality, so they are forced to attack the person, not their idea. The hope is that people will ignore what they other person said because of the smear. We’re simply not falling for it anymore Laurie.
Then, she tries a second liberal trick-changing the subject. They think that they can attack and attack, change the subject, and distract their opponent, as well as anyone else, from what is going on. If you get the feeling that you are being jerked from topic to topic, and getting nowhere in doing so, there’s a reason for that. Don’t permit yourself from being taken off message. It’s a common strategy. Just be aware of it.
Then, she engages in my personal favorite, accusing me of what she is doing. My friends, this is so commonly used, it is like the sun rising every AM. If the left is accusing the right of something, you can almost rest assured that that is what they are doing. The goal is to change the focus from them to you, and put you on the defensive. If you are busy defending yourself, you aren’t making your point. It gives them the initiative.
So go right ahead Laurie, I’ll expose yout every turn. Your philosophy is based on a lie, and all the verbal trickery in the world won’t change it. And if enough people read this, they’ll know how to counter your nonsense as well.
Matt,
No need to get personal. you made the assertion that Bush had to deal with a Democratic majority. Certainly, for one year. But he had six years of unfettered GOP majority and a lot of stuff went unchecked.
My point? Not fond of unfettered majorities. Love it if you could simply answer a question and save he prosletysing for your own blog
Simply pointing out your tactics, nothing more. Also of interest, you mention not making it personal, which, ironically, is what you did in the first place. I think it’s rather disingenuous to accuse me of what you have done.
You know what? Peace. I get a bit frustrated with the misinformation campaigns-on both sides of the aisle, by the way. And I’m more than a little frustrated with the US’s current debt situation.
Constructively: It is of no value to to solutions not to look at all contributing factors. As I see it, the US tends to get spend CRAZY whenever the political branches go unchecked. This happened for 6 years during the Bush administration and spending was out of control. We’ve got the same thing now, and spending is out of control. Balance…Americans crave it, and our political system breaks down without it. Any agreement there?
I was not engaging in disinformation. It’s rather easy to verify which parties had the majorities in 2008. It’s also easy to look up who writes the budgets. I mentioned 2008, which was the biggest deficit in history, until the current POTUS.
I for one can’t wait until they bounce him out of office in another 3 years. I just hope he hasn’t done irreparable damage to this country by that time. Hopefully with the mid terms coming up the conservatives can gain enough to thwart most of what he wants to do.
Bush rang up very large deficits throughout his presidency. I admit to missing your point about 2008, but none of it happened in a vacuum. Why can’t you just agree: Bush was a spend-and-spend President. It was his agenda, all 8 years. And for 6 of them he went completely unchecked.
We can only hope that Obama is checked. I definitely hope that it is.
Of course not, but you also missed the first part of the post where I mentioned that Conservatives have not forgotten what the Republicans did when they were in power.
“I don’t think the Conservatives have forgotten the Republican’s failure to live up to their words when they were in power. It would be a mistake for the GOP to assume that they automatically have votes because people are simply upset with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.”
I would like to see people elected to office that put ideas before party. That is the only way to check spending, and then reduce the size and scope of government.