President Barack Obama delivered his fifth State of the Union
message tonight. The speech focused on a number of themes,
including jobs, budget balancing, energy, education, immigration, gun reform, ending the war in Afghanistan and many other issues.
Obama pointed to stronger economic growth and new jobs coming back to America from overseas. He referred to energy independence, as well as clean energy modalities and superior gas mileage achieved over the course of his administration.
The president discussed the need to pass comprehensive tax reform to close tax loopholes instead of leaving the tax burden solely on the middle class and the sacrifices of retirees. There is a general consensus in the Congress for comprehensive tax reform; however, differences lie in the detailed application of revenue increases to specific deductions.
Obama discussed successes achieved by combining high school education with community college, as well as partnering with employers. This combination will ensure that students have the requisite skills to seek employment in the jobs of the 21st century. The key here is the relevance of the education to specific job-required skills for gainful employment.
The president addressed the need to pursue comprehensive immigration reform. This is an area where both parties agree. There is a general consensus for solving this issue as soon as possible. Children born in the United States should have no impediments to citizenship; nor should people who have waited in line for legal admission and overseas workers with skills in great demand in the United States.
The most heartrending part of the speech dealt with gun violence. The president spoke of the violence in Newtown and other shootings throughout the United States. Here, there are various proposals to strengthen gun laws, provide background checks and take necessary precautions to keep guns away from criminals and others with severe behavioral issues.
Obama was proud of the work done in Afghanistan to thwart Al Qaeda, train the forces and begin a process of withdrawal ending next year. The idea is to eliminate America's combat role over time and retain an advisory and training role.
The speech covered much ground. Many of the items cited are doable right now. In fact, President Obama called on Congress to get bills on his desk for signature in areas like tax reform and immigration. Republicans generally agreed with President Obama, although Republican Senator Marco Rubio called for less government regulation and a smaller government, particularly for small businesses.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
Obama's given that speech before. Inviting Republican legislators to sit and swivel on it might be emotionally satisfying, but it hasn't really moved them in the past and I doubt it will this time either.
Time for a different tune next year if not much has changed, methinks.
2 - Igor
Obama tried the conciliatory mode in his first term and all he got was "NO!", so you can't blame him for trying a different, more aggressive mode.
3 - Dr Joseph S Maresca
The problem for both political parties is that people are suffering. Things that involve jobs and quality of life issues should get instant cooperation.
I believe that the parties will cooperate on tax reform, immigration, modified gun control and registration enhancements, some Pentagon cuts/streamlining and perhaps migrating part of the Medicaid directly to the States. There already has been cooperation on the Hurricane Sandy federal aid and there will be more.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
'Cooperate'??? Haven't you been paying attention? It was decided on the night before Obama was inaugurated the first time that there would be no cooperation, no compromise...and I've seen no indication otherwise since then.
5 - Igor
The republican party seems unalterably opposed to Obama. I don't see any cooperation on the horizon, either.
6 - Igor
@3-Joe: what makes you say :"I believe that the parties will cooperate ..."?
7 - Irene Athena
A few of them see "cooperation" as "compromise," but most are just doing their partisan thang.
8 - Dr Joseph S Maresca
There are things like the sequester which will force action at some point.
9 - Clav
This one's for Glenn.
Seems the much-lauded (by you) "First World" countries are not doing so well (as I have been saying to you for months now) after all. Could it be they've bitten off more than they can chew in terms of entitlement programs? Might they be just a tad too ---- Socialized??
From MSN Money:
The scary thing about a drop in the European economy is that it worsens debt-to-GDP and deficit-to-GDP calculations at the center of the regions debt crisis. Already, both France and Spain look like they are going to miss previous deficit targets, requiring either more taxes, less spending, or leniency from the austerity taskmasters in Germany...Given the dynamics of this downturn -- driven by tapped out government balance sheets -- it's unlikely the Wall Street optimists will get the quick turnaround they expect. (emphasis added)
And in the meantime, we have Mr. Obama significantly expanding our entitlements (can you say, "Obamacare?"), even as we continue to wallow in the worst recession of our history; which, by the way, after four years, Mr. Obama now definitely owns.
10 - Zingzing
Is a depression not a recession? As for ownership, it's kind of a mystical how you can own a thing but you can't do what you want with it.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
That's rather easy to answer. Much of Europe dabbled in austerity - Ireland, Greece, Italy, and Spain certainly did (notice a small pattern there?). France did too, but to a lesser extent - especially since they, like America, passed a modest stimulus package. So have you heard in the news that France's economy is teetering on the edge of disaster? Not so much, not like you have Greece, Italy, and Spain. In fact, the head of the IMF said in October that austerity efforts have been doing far more damage than the experts had assumed, that
tax hikes and spending cuts have been doing more damage to those economies than policymakers expected. (Conversely, countries that engaged in stimulus, such as Germany and Austria, did better than expected.)
(boldface mine - like you'll pay any attention)
And then you say we're "wallowing in the worst recession in our history"? Dude, you should know better. As Zing pointed out, the Great Depression - which also came after a near-decade of low taxes and low regulation - also counts. Surely you're not saying the Great Recession was (not 'is', because we're not in one right now) somehow worse than the Depression!
NOW, Clavos, how about looking at this page, where you can see that the federal debt stayed rather even for the thirty years from 1950 to 1980. THEN look at this graph where you can see that during the same period the federal debt as a percentage of the GDP fell rather significantly. Why? Because the taxes were used to grow the economy through infrastructure and subsidies and, yes, social safety nets.
But of course you'll ignore all this since you're convinced that government is always bad, that keeping taxes as low (or non-existant) as possible is always what is best for the people as a whole...never mind that the data do not back up your belief but do validate Keynesian economics.
12 - Glenn Contrarian
And Clavos -
There's poor in all nations - but where's it better to be poor? In a third-world nation? Or in a socialized democracy? You have to ask yourself, "what is the most important role of government?" To me, it's to (1) defend the nation against all who would attack it, and (2) help keep the standard of living of the people as high as possible for as many of the people as possible.
Unfortunately, most conservatives don't seem to get the importance of #2.
13 - Clav
THEN look at this graph where you can see that during the same period the federal debt as a percentage of the GDP fell rather significantly. Why? Because the taxes were used to grow the economy through infrastructure and subsidies and, yes, social safety nets
Wrong. It was because that was the greatest period of growth and prosperity in the US' history. The ratio changed so dramatically because the GDP was growing so rapidly in the post war boom.
But of course you'll ignore all this since you're convinced that government is always bad, that keeping taxes as low (or non-existant) as possible is always what is best for the people as a whole...never mind that the data do not back up your belief but do validate Keynesian economics.
Is that what I do? Really??
Damn I'm smart, too; not just good looking! Eat your heart out Cracker Boy.
14 - Clav
Is a depression not a recession?
They're similar, as you know. The difference is in degree. Be glad we're only in a recession, not a depression.
So yes, this is the worst recession in our history.
15 - Dr Dreadful
It was because that was the greatest period of growth and prosperity in the US' history. The ratio changed so dramatically because the GDP was growing so rapidly in the post war boom.
Really? It just grew? Spontaneously? All by itself, with no forcing?
16 - Igor
Austerity is a going-out-of-business strategy. Leave that crap to Bain Capital, who will sift through the ruins looking for the residual gold from peoples teeth.
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
It was because that was the greatest period of growth and prosperity in the US' history. The ratio changed so dramatically because the GDP was growing so rapidly in the post war boom.
And why is that, even given the fact that we had a 90% top marginal tax rate for the first ten years, and then a 70% top marginal tax rate for the next twenty years? Are you going to claim that none of the growth came from the government-funded space race, or from the government-funded interstate highway system, or from the (varying degrees of government-funded) medical research? AND let's not forget the (mostly) government-funded precipitous drop in the poverty rate during that time period. AND let's not forget the government-funded education in the GI Bill. AND let's not forget the government-funded DARPA research without which you would not be using this little something called the internet:
The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government to build robust, fault-tolerant, and distributed computer networks. The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks. The commercialization of what was by the 1990s an international network resulted in its popularization and incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life.
Commercialization brought the boom of the internet, Clavos, but it was the GOVERNMENT that laid the foundation that enabled that boom!
All of these were government-funded investments in the American infrastructure and the American people, Clavos - investments that your side is too fearful to make anymore, because you've been indoctrinated - and 'indoctrinated' is the right word - to believe that government is all bad, all the time. And so you flatly ignore all the historical evidence showing you how good government under Keynesian principles grows the economy.
And of course we can always go back to asking you to provide even ONE example of a modern first-world nation functioning successfully with the modern American conservatives' idea of "small government"...because there isn't one. And you never seem to ask yourself why that is.
18 - Zingzing
"So yes, this is the worst recession in our history."
No one cares about second place. The depression was a bad recession, and this thing we're going through now barely compares, and has gotten less terrible since it's been "owned" by Obama. Only the most ardent partisan would deny it. We were living in an artificial bubble before it burst, and it burst worldwide. If you want to blame one man for a fantasy world not of his making, I guess you can do that. But just remember there's a whole branch of the gov't you seem to be forgetting, and they're the ones with their hands on the purse strings. And then remember that it's not the gov't that creates the economy, it's all us little people. And yeah, I know that means I should let W off the hook, but that man let us run wild. It's still not obama's fault this happened, and unless Europe rights itself, the recovery isn't going to be quick, although I hear a free trade agreement with the EU is coming, which could prop them up enough to prop us up as well. Economics isn't a science, it's alchemy, it's religion. It only works if you believe in it, and then it sometimes doesn't work or it spirals out of control, because it does what it wants to regardless of your wishes. The idea that one man, or any of us really, could control the economy is naive. As a total, we control it, but we're all trying our best to get the upper hand, so it's chaos. And that's why we have socialism, to temper our bad behavior.
19 - Clav
Glenn,
My reference was to the post war boom of the late forties and the fifties much of what you mention in terms of gummint spending (space race, drop in poverty, etc.) took place in the sixties and later.
As for the "government-funded education in the GI Bill," I was a "beneficiary" of the gov's "munificence" on that one -- it amounted to all of $130 a month, and only during the months I was actually enrolled -- no summer payments. BFD.
The point is the biggest boom of all was in the 40s and 50s -- without "stimulus."
20 - Clav
zing,
There's a reason why the depression and recession have different names, but you call it what you want, it's not my idea that this is our worst "recession," most economists are calling it that.
And yes, after four years, we're still in the grip of it, so Obama does own it now. You say it's "has gotten less terrible since..." It has? Tell that to the multi millions who are unemployed; many to the point of discouragement to where they've given up. Tell that to consumers so nervous about how long their employment might last, they're not spending money (which of course, is the crux of the problem).
I never said it was O's fault that it happened; just that it's still with us.
It is bad, it's lasting way too long, and we've seen nothing in the way of effective reactions from the administration.
21 - Clav
Really? It just grew? Spontaneously? All by itself, with no forcing?
Stop being coy, Doc. It grew because of pent-up demand as a result of the war.
War IS good business; America achieved economic preeminence in the world because of it.
22 - Dr Dreadful
Stop being coy, Doc. It grew because of pent-up demand as a result of the war.
So nothing to do with any federal government restraint with regard to taxation and social spending, then.
Not trying to be snarky, just pointing out that your point doesn't do anything to debunk Glenn's argument, nor to advance yours about Europe.
23 - Clav
So nothing to do with any federal government restraint with regard to taxation and social spending, then.
Not immediately following the war, no. Except for the GI Bill, which was parsimonious at best, and later, the launching of the Interstate highway system by Ike -- the stated reason for which was facilitating the movement of troops and war materiel, not economy priming.
24 - Zingzing
"It has? Tell that to the multi millions who are unemployed; many to the point of discouragement to where they've given up."
Not that that means anything. Even in the best of times there are millions of unemployed people. Be reasonable, clavos. And yes, there has been something effective, as there has been positive job growth almost the entire time obama's been in office. This isn't an emotional issue, yet that seems to be how you're defining it. By any logical measure, things have gotten better, and obama's policies, even hog tied as they are by GOP nonsense, have at least not prevented that from happening.
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
My reference was to the post war boom of the late forties and the fifties much of what you mention in terms of gummint spending (space race, drop in poverty, etc.) took place in the sixties and later.
And I've pointed out many, many times that in economic terms the greatest government-funded stimulus in American history. If conservative dogma were right and government-funded stimulus doesn't work, then instead of bringing us out of the Depression, WWII would have sent us even further into the economic morass...and you know it.
As for the "government-funded education in the GI Bill," I was a "beneficiary" of the gov's "munificence" on that one -- it amounted to all of $130 a month, and only during the months I was actually enrolled -- no summer payments. BFD.
And $130 was worth a lot more then than it is now, wasn't it? And I'm willing to bet that it covered most your tuition and books - meaning that when you finished, you weren't saddled with a huge debt like graduates are today.
The point is the biggest boom of all was in the 40s and 50s -- without "stimulus."
Again, Clavos, the biggest government-funded economic stimulus in American history was WWII. I clearly remember the half-joke during our economic troubles in the early 1980's that "we just need a good war" to fix the economy...and our progress of coming out of the Depression thanks to WWII was the genesis of that joke.
There's a reason why the depression and recession have different names, but you call it what you want, it's not my idea that this is our worst "recession," most economists are calling it that.
And yes, after four years, we're still in the grip of it, so Obama does own it now.
REALLY? Have you forgotten what constitutes a recession, or did you take an extra swig of Kool-Aid this morning, because:
- Corporate profits are at an all-time high;
- The deficit is falling at its fastest pace since the years immediately following WWII;
- House sales are at their highest level since 2007;
- And the Dow Jones (which doesn't show where we're going, but where we're at right now) is nearing its all-time high.
But if we listen to you, we're still deep in the grip of recession! Look, Clavos, yes, we still have high unemployment - but when Obama tried to pass jobs bills in the years after the stimulus was passed, Your Boys stopped them cold on their way to being the most obstructionist Congress since the Civil War. But of course that means nothing to you.
Tell that to consumers so nervous about how long their employment might last, they're not spending money (which of course, is the crux of the problem).
Tell that to Your Boys in Congress who refused to pass every post-stimulus jobs bill that Obama tried to get through them.
I never said it was O's fault that it happened; just that it's still with us.
Um, no, it's not. We're still recovering from it, but it's like recovering from a broken leg - the bone may be healed, but the recovery is still painful, and the person still can't run at full speed for quite a while afterwards.
It is bad, it's lasting way too long, and we've seen nothing in the way of effective reactions from the administration.
Bullshit. The GOP put forth jobs bills, but all those bills included were deregulation, weakening labor, and tax breaks. And you know what? Most Republicans would like to claim that the Democrats were refusing to pass any of their bills, right? But in reality, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed and the president signed eleven of them into law.
But how many post-stimulus jobs bills put forth by the president did the Republican-controlled House pass? Zero. In other words, if we look at the actions of those in Washington, the Democrats WERE bipartisan, and the Republicans were NOT.
War IS good business; America achieved economic preeminence in the world because of it.
And who funds the war? The government. WWII was the greatest government-funded stimulus in American history, and all your rhetorical tap-dancing can't change that fact.
But I don't know why I try - you've shown you'll ignore all the overwhelming evidence for AGW, so why should I expect you to accept overwhelming evidence of the success of Keynesian economics (in the face of an utter dearth of first-world nations with "small governments").