Analysis Of The State Of The Union Address
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-13/analysis-state-union-address
President Barack Obama takes to the road today to win public support for the policy proposals he presented during last night’s State of the Union address. He said it was time for the parties to come together in support of the middle class. In particular, he called for a higher minimum wage and expanded access to preschool programs and job training. He also emphasized the need for gun control and efforts to address climate change. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio delivered the Republican response, saying private enterprise, not government, should be boosting the middle class. Please join us for analysis of last night’s State of the Union address.
Guests
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of "It's Even Worse Than It Looks."
Ruth Marcus
columnist and editorial writer at The Washington Post.
Byron York
chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Alfredo wrote:
"Unfortunately the funding of our basic education is linked to property taxes and poor neighborhoods have poor schools and it's here where we need an overhaul."
Agree! And it's happening post-Katrina in New Orleans public schools where kids are loving learning and excelling in their ... charter schools!
StLouis wrote:
"He has the ability to expound upon huge, sweeping, visionary platitudes, but has demonstrated limited if any ability to execute on these visions"
That's because he's an "organizer", not an "executive", StLouis.
I remember a programmer that worked for me many years ago. His productivity was not up to par. When asked about that his defense was, "I'm really more of an idea man". He was soon gone. They say "those who can't do, teach". To that I would add, "Those who can't do, are idea men" and "Those who can't do, organize".
"He has the ability to expound upon huge, sweeping, visionary platitudes" ... he's an idea man, StLouis. It's why his presidency has, and will continue to be, a failure.
Attaching the dollars to the student is the way to go. New Orleans exported much of it's human debris to Texas and surrounding states and it gave them the breathing room to clean house. D.C. spends about 30k per student and has some of the worst stats on record. It is a false notion that funding is the problem.
anewsboy wrote:
"It is a very weak argument to say that raising the minimum wage will keep the economy from growing. An employer who can not afford his workers that basic pay is not strong enough to grow his business. Workers who are paid a Living wage do not take the government dole of food stamps. At this level people are usually not saving much more than to buy their first cars. They grow the economy at this level, not their employer by hiring another starvation wage worker."
Interesting analysis, but flawed.
If "an employer who can not afford his workers that basic pay is not strong enough to grow his buisness" he will have to eliminate jobs. "Workers who are paid a Living wage" may get off "the government dole of food stamps", but those people whose jobs will be eliminated because of a TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT increase in the minimum wage,will go on that same dole. There are many businesses who have many employees whose jobs are "on the edge" because of the economy and ACA. Adding a 25% increase the the minimum wage will surely push millions more out of work. The fact is, the FG CANNOT determine what a "living wage" is. The market-place MUST do it. What you are seeing is what I have been saying would happen pre-recession - the great leveling of world wage rates. Wage rates in this country have been artificially high for decades because of labor unions. Even though our standard of living is certainly higher than most countries, you can't pay $60/hour for $40 worth of work and we've been doing it in manufacturing for decades. The fix for leveling world wage rates is not to artificially inflate them again. This is going to be a long painful process - there's just no getting around that.
"It is a false notion that funding is the problem."
Agree. That's the point I was trying to make. The solution in NO was not throwing more money at the schools - it was remaking the entire model.
ecgberht2 wrote: "he's an idea man"
Most of the right woefully misunderstands Obama and his objectives. I think you do as well. His presidency is not a failure, to the contrary, it appears to be an almost unprecedented success.
Dave H. wrote:
"George W. Bush said, 'You have to keep repeating things to catapult the propaganda'"
Dave, as a small government guy myself, I agree with most of what you write here, but have to challenge the quote you attribute to GWB. You take it out of context and distort its meaning and the left has been doing that since he made the statement.
The statement first has to be placed in context. This was at a "town hall" style Q&A where a lady (presumably a retiree) asked about his SS reform plan and how she would be affected. His full reply was:
"If you're retired, you don't have anything to worry about. That's the third time I've said that. I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
In other words, a catapult is the only way you get past the propaganda of the left, and in the case of his SS reform plan, that was never so true.
First of all, thank you Diane Rehm for these two subjects today and may you live forever!!!!. I agree with BARBHARV. Mr. Rubio will continue to lie if he is not caught and put his foot in his mouth. I have so much to tell on Mr. Rubio. But will have time for that in the future as his "career" develops.
laprofa wrote:
"All brown communities are not the same, as Rubio displays amply through his calls to criminalize undocumented migrants, most of whom everyone assumes to be Mexican. Your guests need a critical education in learned associations and implicit bias. Learn your own so that you don't perpetuate them on national radio."
Interesting points. Mis-impressions do matter. Take President Obama for example. He is, technically, the first "African American" President. His heritage is Kenyan - and I am not a "birther" so don't even go there. But American Blacks, particularly their patronizing leadership, fawn at the prospect of his being the great hope for their people (though Black Americans as a people are far worse off in the last four years in terms of income and unemployement). But I would submit that most people when they conceptualize the African American experience in this country, visualize slaves, by the thousands being forced here in slave ships to a life of servitude, fighting for their own freedom in the Revolutionary and Civil wars, fighting racism and segregation to rise to be a force in American life. Perhaps many of those 90+% who voted for Mr. Obama, not once, but twice visualize his ancestors in that picture. It isn't true, of course, there is not one individual in his father's history that had any relational ties to slaves, but I have never ONCE heard that point clarified from any media source. Mis-impressions matter - but if they serve your purpose, why confuse people with the facts.
Why are we now being treated to the views of a wingnut segment of the population as though they have some legitimacy? Who is next Rush, Mike? Why not hear from some leftist wingnuts?
smarmy
Dan D. wrote:
"Most of the right woefully misunderstands Obama and his objectives. I think you do as well. His presidency is not a failure, to the contrary, it appears to be an almost unprecedented success".
You've been around here long enough to know better than that Dan D.
It depends on your perspective. If you are looking at what is good for the country long term, which most people do, then his policies have been a miserable failure. When you look at his policies from the point of view of the great kneeling of America in the world that, for example, "2016" talks about, then his policies are a success, I agree. I am often torn between the two, but with the recent appointment of Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary, I lean more toward the latter. I am beginning to see perhaps a grander vsion of, now that the American economy has been dismantled, brought down to earth from a position of greatness, it's time to dismantle the American military in the same way. Hagel is certainly the man to do it.
My, my, Marco Rubio's commentary....
Clearly, the Republican establishment continues with their campaign of misinformation and deception...now with a new mouthpiece.
The president is seeking a "balanced approach" that keeps the US from spiraling as are many European countries that embraced austerity.
Why does it seem that Replicans completely ignore what is happening across the Atlantic...even after the election they are clinging to their bubble.
DrMikey wrote:
"Amazing when you consider Mr Milbank's leftward tendency. Is the Honeymoon finally over?"
Interesting question. Even NPR was, shall we say, "calling into question" many of the statements he made last night on Morning Edition today. You can find the audio on the website if you haven't heard it. They did their best to provide rationalizations for each one, but it was pretty clear that they were calling all but "pants on fire" for most of the examples.
ecgberht2 wrote: "It depends on your perspective"
St. Louis doesn't get it, your response to his comment left me wondering.
I measure success in only one way, the achievement of the intended goal.
secoherence wrote: "The president is seeking a "balanced approach" that keeps the US from spiraling as are many European countries that embraced austerity."
Wrong!
The Myth of European Austerity
However, it turns out that those blasting Europe's experience with spending restraint omit some critical facts. Contrary to what you may have heard, spending cuts have largely been lacking in Europe's economic crisis response. Instead, in most European nations, austerity has mostly taken the form of higher taxes. We shouldn't be surprised Europe is struggling: when you raise taxes in a weak economy, it has a negative effect on investment and economic growth.
In fact, most countries in Europe are spending more today than they did before the 2008 crash, according to financial reports from the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm. Yet austerity critics want to attribute the sluggish European economy entirely to spending cuts. France and the United Kingdom, for example, have made virtually no effort to cut spending; they've seen spending increase nearly every year over the last decade.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/01/the-myth-of-european-a...
Dan D. comment suggested me the questions
1. Does he read others comments?
2. Is Billy Bob Neck making comments in this page?
?
What I'm wondering is, where did all of the Stimulous money go? Weren't roads and bridges and other so-called "shovel ready" projects the whole purpose for spending those billions? Here again the president is offering a repeat. Nothing new.
Public-Private partnerships only work if the private partner makes a profit on the partnership. No private business will stay in business very long if their partnerships are not profitable. So where will the profit come from? Like one commenter said, Obama is an idea man. And I add, an idea man whose ideas stem from a poverty mentality and an anti-American agenda.
Obama's continuous attacks on Republicans, as we saw during his first remarks last night, are what keeps the Congress in stalemate. Why would anyone want to compromise with someone who repeatedly accuses them of such lies as, only "caring about the rich", they should "do their job", pay "their fair share", "stop partisan politics", "work with me". Obama seems to want to tear down anyone who does not support his own personal views. These attacks demonstrate the unending arrogance of this president and his willingness to create roadblocks to growth rather than to compromise with the House Republicans.
For those bloggers who say Rubio lied, why don't you do a little research about the cotton candy spin Obama gave last night. Who knows your eyes may be open to the truth.
Am I the only one who finds the remarks of the caller, Jim, hysterically ironic? He (falsely) screams about the President “demonizing the other side” and “judging motives”, only to launch into a fine example of a Republi-Con doing precisely that!
Pray tell me where in the speech the President accused Jim’s side of wanting “to push grandma off the cliff? I certainly didn’t hear it. But I did hear Jim repeat the tiresome (and false) mantra that people only support the President “when they’re going to get something”, while those who oppose the President are “the people who pay the bills”. In other words: it’s the “takers” versus the “makers”, and the President only won re-election because of those irresponsible “47%”. (Which, in further irony, was about the percentage of the vote Romney received!)
So who’s the one actually demonizing? Sounds like Jimmy boy to me!
P.S. - And just to allow reality to intrude on the discussion. I voted for the President, and throughout my life I’ve gotten nothing from the government, except for the occasional Unemployment Insurance - available to everyone who qualifies, not just the poor. But I’ve paid taxes almost all my life, and I’m confident the amount I paid far exceeded the amount I received. So I guess that makes me a “bill payer”.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
On the other hand, I have a good friend who voted for Romney. She’s been on SSI disability for over a decade. She receives food stamps, Medicaid (and when she was old enough, Medicare), and her housing is provided by the Section 8 program. In addition, because of all that, she qualified for one of those free cell phones! That makes her a “taker” I guess.
So how come she voted for the Republican, and I voted for the Democrat? Well, aside from the fact she can’t stand having a Black in the White House, and the fact she’s a Mormon, I doubt it was for the reasons Jim proclaimed. And my vote was determined by a lot of things, including that slanderous “47%” remark, along with talk about “legitimate rape”, or the notion that pregnancy-from-rape was divine will. I also couldn’t abide the birther nonsense, or the way Republi-Cons brand anything they disagree with as “Socialism!” (by which they mean “Communism!”). Or how they proclaim they believe in “small government”, except where selected moral issues like birth control, abortion, gay rights, or the teaching of Science (Evolution) are concerned. Then they want the biggest government possible!
(Funny, though, how people dying from lack of healthcare, food, shelter, etc., never seem to make it on that list of moral issues to be addressed by government.)
But please, Republi-Cons, keep talking that way. It helped you lose the 2012 elections, and it may do the same in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 . . . .
"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "
That's all you have to know. Strudel, there is so much fallacy in these posts I don't even know where to begin. I'll just say this ... the fact that you can point to two individuals who did not vote along the lines of the economics of who will give me the most stuff does not mean that the vast majority of Americans who voted for Obama did not do so. Polls support it - including polls that show that Hispanics voted primarily on the economy and not immigration. Romney's "47%" comment was right to the extent that the vast majority of people getting something at the hand of the government would not vote for him and to the extent that the left demonized and lied about the Ryan plan from SS, that includes retirees too. (And I suggest you reread that last comment until you understand its point before you shoot your mouth off).
ecgberht2 on February 13, 2013 @ 4:52 pm wrote: “there is so much fallacy in these posts I don't even know where to begin.”
Looking in the mirror again, are we?
Romney and the Republi-Cons (including yourself and the caller, Jim) have been following the politics of selfishness, a.k.a. Reaganism or “Voodoo Economics”, which consisted of trying to “bribe” the electorate with tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts for decades. (They rationalized this by the theory of “Supply-side Economics”, which held you could cut taxes and yet increase revenue, thus enabling increased government spending, especially on the things they liked - the military, for example.) And the fact this never worked (as even one of its prime champions, David Stockman, has admitted) didn’t cause Reaganauts to waiver in the slightest. Selfishiness also was manifested in appeals to bigotry and racial fear. (Remember those infamous “Willie Horten” and “You needed that job” ads?)
So, of course, when you lose elections it's because Democrats are better at bribing voters than you are. (Or else, it’s just a case of bad “marketing” and P.R. on your part.) It could never be the fact that both the message and messenger were wrong. (“Legitimate” rape, “divinely” ordained pregnancies by rape.)
Yes, I provided two examples to illustrate that the “47%” mantra was wrong. I also pointed out that it was Romney (ironically) who got just about that amount of the vote. (As did the “liberal” Byron York.) And it was Norman Ornstein, long-time member of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who said the same thing: warning that Republi-Con arrogance and assertions cost them the election, and may continue to do so.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Of course, in the Republi-Con lexicon a “liberal” is anyone who doesn’t toe the party line like a good apparatchnik. So both Ornstein and York must be “liberals”, along with Governor Christie (who dared praise the President for something), and Governor “Don’t be the stupid party” Jindal.
And your response? Aside from the usual ludicrous insults, you only refer to an unnamed set of polls you claim show Hispanics voted primarily on the economy. So what? I didn’t mention immigration at all! Doesn’t your claim refute another example of Republi-Con “identity politics”: that Hispanics voted solely (or primarily) because of immigration? (By the way, I bet there are plenty of non-Hispanics who disagree with Republicans on that issue.) Besides, none of that has anything to do with the “47%”, or with the issue of Republi-Cons demonizing “the other side”.
In short, there is so much fallacy in your post. However, I not only knew where to begin, but I refuted it!
And let’s not forget something I’ve pointed out many times (though, perhaps, not on these pages). If you bother to look at the study from the Tax Policy Institute, the source for that 47% figure, you’ll learn that you and Romney got it completely wrong!
Who comprise the 47%? Are they just a bunch of “takers”, busy living off the public dole? No. About half of that group are the low-income elderly and low-income working families, people on disability, and veterans on pensions. Moreover, they, and others, are benefiting from tax cuts created by Republicans (Reagan and Bush the Second especially). So if you’re really offended by this, end the tax cuts!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
And also included are the very rich who know how to manipulate the tax system with offshore accounts, and things like the “carried interest” dodge (under which they receive compensation for their employment in a form that receives a much lower tax rate because it’s treated as investment income and not a salary). You know, the very people Romney made that infamous speech to. He was talking to the moochers!
Oh, and let’s not forget, that 47% figure is only about the Federal income taxes. It doesn’t include the payroll taxes (Social Security, etc.), State income taxes, sales taxes, or other kinds of taxes that even those “47%” pay.
Don’t take my word for this. Read, among other things:
* The Tax Policy Institute’s report: www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf
* The Marketplace article: "The numbers behind Mitt Romney's 47% comment"
* "Mitt Romney versus the 47 percent" by Brad Plumer
* "Why do half of all Americans pay no federal income taxes?" by Ezra Klein
It should be noted that the other articles are based on the Tax Policy Institute’s report, so you can just read that. But, they help cut through all the wonkery in the report.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FOUR
Yes, I know, you want to blame that nebulous entity “the left”, but we’re not talking about that, sir. We are talking about the President’s State of the Union speech, and what he did or didn’t say there. We are also talking about the caller, Jim’s, inane comments, which you’ve managed to surpass in that quality.
You want to argue about any of the other Comments posted here, argue with the people who made them. I'm not interested, and I won't assist you in evasion and avoidance by being lured into such a discussion.
Furthermore, your attempt to “spin” Romney’s remarks only digs your hole deeper. He didn’t claim merely that “the vast majority of people” who “would not vote for him”, were those “getting something at the hand of the government”. He claimed that 47% consisted solely of people who paid no taxes, took no responsibility for their lives, and depended on government “free stuff”. As I’ve just demonstrated, that was completely false. The actual 47% consisted of the elderly, who presumably earned their retirement, disabled veterans (ditto), and working families - who obviously aren’t just moochers.
TO BE CONTINUED
climatewiz1 on February 13, 2013 @ 6:32 pm wrote: “Would you stand and clap for a man who has proven that he can't be trusted, that his word is not his bond, just because he is good at spouting off stuff that the media and morons want to hear, knowing full well that 1/2 of what he is saying is total BS????”
Aside from the fact that your accusations against the President are false - why not? You Republi-Cons did the same thing eight times for Reagan (“Trees cause more pollution than people. “In my heart I didn’t believe it was guns for hostages.”), four times for Bush the First (“Read my lips”), and eight more times for Bush The Second (whatever happened to those WMD’s Saddam supposedly had? To name only the most obvious example.)
But what’s truly funny is that you discuss Scalia in response to a Comment about sensible gun control. You see his decision in D.C. v. Heller (badly reasoned as it was) did not (as the NRA and its follow travelers falsely claim) say that we have an unlimited right to acquire and own any kind of weapon, any time or way we can. To the contrary, it expressly said the government could limit the type of weapons, and that there could be restrictions on where we can “bear arms”, as well as reasonable gun regulations. I can’t say whether he (or the conservatives on the Court) would personally like such regulations, but unless they “can’t be trusted” they’ll certainly have to declare them constitutional - since they already did!
But, to repeat myself, please, please, PLEASE continue to call those you disagree with “morons”. It’s that kind of arrogance which helped cost the Republi-Cons this election, and which may very well do so in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020. . . .
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: and wrote
Brevity is the soul of wit.
The truth comes in short sentences, lies take volumes.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "Aside from the fact that your accusations against the President are false"
E.S. you are in denial just like the POTUS...
FACT: Scalia hasn't been to a SOTU address for 16 years...Put simply, the central issue in the disagreement between Scalia and the POTUS is not really about immigration or gun regulations, it is “What do states and American citizens do when the federal executive branch won’t enforce the laws Congress passes?” And yes, this time the gun debate will hit the SCOTUS. Did Scalia turn the ignition key? Probably.
As for immigration, the problem Justice Scalia identified, and that the majority of the Supreme Court ducked, is not that Arizona’s illegal immigration law conflicts with the federal immigration laws passed by Congress, because all agree they didn’t. The problem is Arizona’s illegal immigration law conflicts with Barack Obama’s desire not to enforce the federal immigration laws passed by Congress. Obama thumbs his nose at the rule of law and Scalia knows what O promotes at his SOTU address is bunk, theatrics, smoke and mirrors... one long continuous campaign stunt. He rattled the "by executive order if needed" sabre in his speech again yesterday.
FACT: Boehner despises the POTUS because Obama has stuck a knife in his back TWICE on the budget... Boehner compromised, Obama smiled, agreed to the compromise, patted Boehner on the back, shook hands with him and then held a press conference and went back on the campaign trial to shout at the top of his lungs THE REPUBS ARE THE PARTY OF NO COMPROMISE... You could tell he was lying... 'cause his lips were moving....
Part deux
Skip forward to "moochers" ... your term (not Romney's or mine - too bad lefties like you have such a low opinion of these people). Romney does not need me to defend him. In fact he amended and elaborated on his remarks soon after the surreptitiously gotten video, which you do not mention. I only said that 47% of tax payers "get something from the hand of government", which Romney made clear was the intent of his remark. (I even spoke of retirees who, yes, do pay in). I did not speak to whether they pay taxes or not. I also pointed out the misrepresentation of the Ryan plan which was used to panic retirees that their benefits would be cut ... which was a lie, of course, and which part you dishonestly leave out, even though I urged you to consider my statement about these folks carefully before flapping your gums, but you eschewed that suggestion.
On Hispanics, YOU brought up the lost election in 2012 and a laundry list of mostly ridiculous reasons for it. I refuted the most common of memes that Hispanics, a significant part of this cycle, vote on immigration. By the way, in a debate, I am permitted to introduce NEW points and not just respond to your points - only an egotistical fool would think otherwise, which I'm sure does not describe you.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-repu...