COLBY, Kan. - I missed the first part of the President's address. GrannyP recorded it and I'll listen to it in the morning. The last portion of his speech, that I got to listen to, seemed to clearly address the state of the union and the political disparities we face. He addressed some issues that we need to resolve and gave his directions he wanted to go.
I did listen to the Indiana governor's response and a few of the news commentators take on the message. They all seemed to think it was purely 'campaign rhetoric'. I have to disagree with that assessment and say the governor's response was far more partisan campaign rhetoric than the President's speech. He merely made a few gratuitous comments about the President and then proceeded to criticize, without ever really making any real commitments to specific recommendations of how to proceed to improve the State of the Union.
It is an absolute fact that our government has been in gridlock with partisanship stalling any real progress in solving our economic problems. All political parties are guilty. I'm a true 'blue' democrat that believes the Republicans have been more intransigent than others.
Let's hear some comments from others!
For the first 2 years of Obama's administration, his party controlled the House and had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. They were unable to 'solve' our economic problems during that time when the Republicans couldn't stop anything. In many cases, the Democrats didn't even address the problems during those 2 years (like creating a budget) - preferring to spend all their efforts on the Obamacare law that is of dubious constitutionality at this point.
State of the Union address? Nope, just another class warfare rally full of lies based in fantasyland. Obama’s speeches started getting obnoxious 3 years ago, now they’re just plain obscene. Our country, our government, does not guarantee a zero-sum game. All U.S. citizens get a “fair shot” when we ALL play by the “same set of rules” spelled out in our country’s owner’s manual – the Constitution.
OBSERVATIONS:
In the 111th Congress, the current party alignments: The Senate had 57 Democrats; two Independents, who caucus with the Democrats, and 41Republicans. To break a filibuster requires 60 votes. 57 + 2 + 59.
from nationaljournal.com --
"At least eight major pieces of legislation have been entirely halted by filibusters in this Congress—six since September, including three in the past 10 days alone—although each bill received more than 50 votes in the Senate. Five of those eight passed in some form with a majority vote in the House before failing to achieve a “super majority” vote in the Senate...."
"While the 111th Congress has been marked by more than 100 loosely described “filibusters [setting a record],” in reality the mere threat of a filibuster has forced many measures to achieve 60-vote 'super majority' support."
2nd commenter: sincere but vacuous.
And you, my friend, think you are playing, as an individual, by the same rules the corporations are? You as a wage earner, with the most of your income by paycheck and subject to FICA, are playing on the same field and by the same rules as the CEOs who get huge salaries, stock options, big dollar investment incomes, etc.?? You've been listening to the con artist mouth pieces of Koch Brothers, and Oil companies.
Wake up dude! You are no more than chattel for the corporation that employs you.
Obama isn't perfect, but he's quite an improvement over the last guy holding his position. And, surely, if the repubs can't field any better choices than we've seen so far, we had better stick with him.
If you think the comment, my dear Mr. Hooper, is mindless and stupid, then why did you bother responding to it? Unless, you just couldn’t resist spewing another insult toward a right-winger, using a choice adjective from that deep and extensive vocabulary that’s always at your ready disposal.
You guys need to stop with this Koch Brothers thing. Whenever you cite them and other successful types, you’re making yourselves sound like jealous sore losers.
I would love to play by the same rules ol' Mitt or ol' Newt play by. I lived in Michigan when Mitt's dad George was governor, so it was easy to see how the rules favored Mitt. Gee. My dad was a truck driver. Of course, he was also a union member, so he earned a decent income and retired with a good pension. He was never a mulit-millionaire, however, no matter how much he played by "the rules." Those rules for multi-millionaires didn't apply to him and they are even more out of whack for the working man and woman now.
Now those who play by multi-millionaire rules want to kill unions so working people will lose all hope of decent pay and working conditions. Believe me, depending on the good will of overpaid CEOs will not bring about a decent salary or working conditions for working people.
I'm sure someone (Jonathan? Schlyler?) will accuse me of waging class warfare. I would if I had the weaponry for such warfare. At this point, the warfare is being waged by the wealthy against people like me. The Kochs have bought and paid for the Kansas State Legislature, and no matter how many good works they do, they will never do enough to make up for their war against average workers, especially those who work in the public sector. Jealous sore losers, Jonathan? I don't want what the Kochs have. What they have is built on greed. I don't even expect them to share their great wealth with others. I just expect them to get off the backs of working people.
I always loved my teaching jobs and enjoyed the students, even when the pay was extremely low. I joined the NEA to keep the rules as fair as I could for those in the teaching profession. I'm still fighting that battle, even in retirement.
My mom and dad were life-long Republicans, active in the Party, until the end of George Bush I's term. They finally wised up and saw that the Republican Party did not have their best interests at heart and they changed party affiliation. They figured things out at last.
No, Jonathan, I'm not a jealous sore loser! I don't want what the Koch brothers have. I'm perfectly content with what I have and where I am in life. I've a roof over my head, adequate nourishment, good health (relative to my age), and a faith that tells me no one can take my relationship with my God away from me.
I'm not content with the inequities I see in the lives of those around me. Some have far more than enough and some have much less than enough.
I'm not content with the survival of the fittest economic system.
I'm not content with the class warfare that we hear so much about. Neither am I content with what defines 'class warfare'. If the poor man asks for help from the rich man, he is promoting class warfare? The rich man says, tough luck buddy, I got mine, you go get yours. But, don't expect me to help you! That's not class warfare? Nope, that's just good old capitalism, at its best! If you can't stay in the game with the big dogs, then you don't play. We have control of the monopoly board and you can just go to bed, when you haven't any money or property left.
Jonathan, life isn't just a game where there has to be a winner and a loser. Life is an experience, with limited time and limited resources. That experience can be greatly enhanced, when we attempt to share our time and resources, equally, with all mankind.
I'm not content with a society that let's money buy influence and set the rules for everyone. Money seems to talk louder than the conscience of a good compassionate society.
I'm not content when religious folks reserve the right to interpret and pass all laws according to their own narrow concept of their religion. It makes no difference what the religion is, that is not freedom!
Come on folks! We've only heard from 5 of us on this issue. Surely there are others who have opinions, questions, and answers. No one of us has all the facts or answers. But, together we can expand our awareness of where people are on the issues and begin to formulate, better, our own opinions and postitions.
Ken says, "...[L]ife isn't just a game where there has to be a winner and a loser. Life is an experience, with limited time and limited resources. That experience can be greatly enhanced, when we attempt to share our time and resources, equally, with all mankind."
Ken--Your definition is a good one. It's too bad we don't hear from more people on this issue, but I know some of my friends are working hard to change things. They probably don't have time to participate in our blog discussions. I used to go to Topeka and lobby the legislature on issues that I cared about and I also stood on street corners with my signs. I ran out of energy to do those things, but many other people have taken my place. I'm grateful to them and to you for your articulate posts.
I liked his speeh with the exception of his comments regarding Iran. I understand this is not the type of country anyone wants with a nuclear weapon, but President Obama did not sound very diplomatic to me. It sounded like something from the Republican debates. I think this week the EU put new restrictions on Iran and I hope President Obama is committed to coming up with a diplomatic solution.
I think a call for more economic equality and equality of opportunity in this country hardly deserves to be called class warfare. The statistics show that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
I hope congres can come up with real solutions. I think President Obama is right to be against trick down economics. It may sound somewhat populist, but in effect he would hardly be any different than what US presidents like did and even some Republicans like Eisenhower.