What is Obama going to propose tonight?

[Chino]

Unfortunately I am going to be in class during this speech. Obviously it is going to be about creating jobs. A lot of people think it is going to focus heavily on the teachers who are at risk of being laid off. I'm not sure whether or not I would like to see 100+billion dollars go toward teachers. I'd rather see something done about the corrupt unions instead. One thing I found disgusting is many republicans have already announced that they are not going to attend his adress. Some have said they have other priorities, and others have said they are just going to watch it on their computers. What the fuck is that shit! You are one of the few people who has control over this country's future, and you are skipping a speech being given by the president... it's disrespectful to him, and frankly really pisses me off. It all seems imature and childish to me. They should be embarrassed and Americans should be appauled. All it says to me is that the Republicans and the Tea Baggers aren't going to consider anything as long as it comes out of Obama's mouth.

"South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, a member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, told Jon Karl of ABC News that he "probably" won't show up either.

"If he sent a written proposal over first, I would go hear him explain it, but frankly right now I'm so frustrated I don't think I'm going to go," DeMint told ABC News. "I can't imagine too many Americans wanting to hear another speech with no real plan attached."


"Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter is the latest to announce that he will not be there, choosing to attend a party to watch the New Orleans Saints' opening football game instead.

[Orion1967]

All it says to me is that the Republicans and the Tea Baggers aren't going to consider anything as long as it comes out of Obama's mouth.

Well the way that you can tell if Obama is lying is look and see if the lips are moving... so yeah I can't really blame them.  Obama/Pelosi/Reid have been the worst thing that has happened to this country.... ever. So to sit and listen to his first of many Obama/Bined 2012 election campaign kick off speeches, yeah not feeling it myself.

"Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter is the latest to announce that he will not be there, choosing to attend a party to watch the New Orleans Saints' opening football game instead.

Thats pretty much my plan for tonight.

[PraXis]

More failed stimulus spending... let's look at an example of one of these "stimulus" projects for Seattle:

$20 million dollars for 2000 jobs to weatherize homes in poor areas... ok so $10k a person for some temporary work caulking windows and installing insulation...

The result?

3 homes, 14 jobs, about $143k each

This is why stimulus programs fail. The gov't is extremely inefficient at handling OUR money. Screw 'em!

https://www.komonews.com/news/local/127844048.html

Now our previous "stimulus" program was $787 billion... actually it was $862 billion because they needed more money for unemployment... LOL

So imagine almost a TRILLION dollars made up of worthless, stupid mini projects like the Seattle failure.. and unemployment still goes up.... are you shocked?

[bosk1]

A lot of people think it is going to focus heavily on the teachers who are at risk of being laid off. I'm not sure whether or not I would like to see 100+billion dollars go toward teachers. I'd rather see something done about the corrupt unions instead.

In the abstract, I agree with you.  The problem is, even when money goes to "education," and the assumption or even the intention is to have it go to teachers, significant portions of it end up going to administrators, a bloated bureaucracy, and the corrupt unions you mention rather than going to the teachers or the actual supplies and tools the teachers need to do their jobs.  It is quite frustrating to me.  I am of the opinion that there is plenty of money going to education to not only keep the teachers we have from being laid off, but to give them hefty raises IF we didn't have a bureaucracy that siphons off most of that money before it ever gets into the teachers' hands.  Again, very frustrating.

One thing I found disgusting is many republicans have already announced that they are not going to attend his adress. Some have said they have other priorities, and others have said they are just going to watch it on their computers.

I get what you are saying.  And I don't totally disagree.  But I would make the following counterpoints:

1.  Is there a specific reason they need to attend?  I get that these are the people who are, at least theoretically in a position to shape policy, and I'm not saying it isn't important to attend speeches or other events that serve as a forum for putting policy into place that will help.  But has there been any indication that this speech is anything other than Whitehouse P/R, which we have already had a ton of from this president?  Not that there isn't a place for that.  But if that's all this is, and given how much of it we've had from this president, why is there a need for full attendance from the legislature?

2.  If nonattendance is a means of "silent protest" in a way, isn't that their right?  Yes, it would be best if we could have a show of unity.  But if, arguably, legislators feel the interests of their constituents are being trampled, then even if they are mistaken, isn't this sort of silent protest valid?

[lordxizor]

If nonattendance is a means of "silent protest" in a way, isn't that their right?

If this was the case, then they should come out and say it. "I am not going to attend tonights speech as a protest against the President's policies" or whatever. Saying you're not going to go because you'd rather go to a football game is childish and disrespectful, IMO.

[bosk1]

I see what you are saying.  But if they are protesting by not attending, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't fill that time slot with whatever they feel like filling it with, whether it be work or fun.

Again, I think Chino raises a good point.  But when it comes right down to it, it doesn't bother me.  And, yes, I've asked myself whether I would feel the same way if it were a president I liked, and I think I would.  Again, if this were some big policy meeting where something needed to get done or decided, I agree they should be there, whether they disagree with the man or not.  But I don't get the sense that this is that.

[Chino]

I see what you are saying.  But if they are protesting by not attending, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't fill that time slot with whatever they feel like filling it with, whether it be work or fun.

Again, I think Chino raises a good point.  But when it comes right down to it, it doesn't bother me.  And, yes, I've asked myself whether I would feel the same way if it were a president I liked, and I think I would.  Again, if this were some big policy meeting where something needed to get done or decided, I agree they should be there, whether they disagree with the man or not.  But I don't get the sense that this is that.

I just feel that if you are a member of congress, there is a certain level of professionalism that you need to live up to. Saying you are going to watch a football game instead makes you look like a arrogant asshole. I do agree that if they said " "I am not going to attend tonights speech as a protest against the President's policies" I wouldn't be as against it. I still think however by skipping even for that reason, you are acting on your own ideas and agenda regardless of what the president says. For all we know he is going to say something totally unexpected. Is it likely? No. But in regards to the President of the United States, I believe you at least owe him the benefit of the doubt and should listen to what he has to say. That's what I expect from someone who has my future in their hands.

[TL]

See, here's the thing. You're allowed to disagree with his policies and voice opposition, but when you start making comments like this;

Obama/Pelosi/Reid have been the worst thing that has happened to this country.... ever.

no one is going to take you seriously, because you're not worth taking seriously.

President Buchanan did basically nothing to prevent a civil war and a split in the union.
Obama... tried to give people health care (nationalized health care systems exist in every other G7 nation, all of which are consistently considered to have far better health care than the US), and had the US participate in a somewhat questionable military campaign (which many, many US presidents have done, and many with far worse things).

Again, you're allowed to not like him. You're allowed to disagree with his policies. But come on, discuss it like a fucking adult.

[Super Dude]

Just when I thought the current political climate couldn't get any more disgraceful, the Republicans continue to surprise me.

[MasterShakezula]

I'm surprised you're surprised.

They know what they want, and they will do their damnest to try and push it through, with it being, ATM, get the Democratic Party out of the White House, and as much of it out of the Capitol, as well. 

Though I do not agree with the views of the Repubs, I will give the devil his due and say I wouldn't be surprised if they sweep 2012.  Rarely does one see such sheer determination from a political party.  

[Super Dude]

The party is playing to win, but I wouldn't hand the election over to them.  Unless Rick Perry or Ron Paul somehow become the latest sensation sweeping the nation (I mean they are, but not at such a scale yet to overpower each other), they won't knock out Obama.  I hope.

[MasterShakezula]

I agree that having such a divided prelim could prove a struggle for whoever gets the nomination.

However, the Repubs, being the aggressors they are, can and will find some way to demonize Obama and get people to believe it. 

Not that I want them to win.  I don't especially like Bama, but I cannot take Perry seriously, and I disagree with Paul on many key issues that I agree with Bama on. 

Here's hoping for an Obama victory in 2012, and a much more competitive and driven Democratic party, so 2014 doesn't turn into another 2010 fiasco. 

[Super Dude]

Well no, that's the point: they can demonize Obama all they want, but with the support base so divided, it'll be hard to compete even with such a demonized president.

[TL]

I could very well see one of two things happening with the Republican side of things in 2012;
1) They pick a Tea Party friendly nominee, or at least VP nominee, which alienates the more moderate wing of the party.
2) They don't pick a Tea Party friendly nominee, and someone runs as a Tea Party nominee, splintering right wing support.

Basically, with the tea party, the Republicans have created a monster, and now they're trapped in the cage with it.

[Dublagent66]

I really doesn't matter what he proposes at this point.  It's too little too late.  I watched for a while and just couldn't take the smug look and attitude.  Just another campaign speech.  He gives the impression like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Now, if his actions were as serious as his look during speeches, he'd be the greatest thing since Jimmy Carter.  Very disturbing and sad.

 

[Nick]

I really doesn't matter what he proposes at this point.  It's too little too late.  I watched for a while and just couldn't take the smug look and attitude.  Just another campaign speech.  He gives the impression like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Now, if his actions were as serious as his look during speeches, he'd be the greatest thing since Jimmy Carter.  Very disturbing and sad.

 

You say that like Jimmy Carter was a good thing.

[El Barto]

Now, if his actions were as serious as his look during speeches, he'd be the greatest thing since Jimmy Carter. 

Ya know, that's actually somewhat funny.

As I've said numerous times before,  Carter was nowhere near as bad as it's popular to say.  He wasn't a good president, but the animosity towards his term in office is petty and misguided.  There were worse, have been worse, and will be worse.  At least you're old enough to criticize him with some semblance of validity, though,  unlike most people who weren't around and jump on the "worst president ever" bandwagon.

[Super Dude]

Now, if his actions were as serious as his look during speeches, he'd be the greatest thing since Jimmy Carter. 

Ya know, that's actually somewhat funny.

As I've said numerous times before,  Carter was nowhere near as bad as it's popular to say.  He wasn't a good president, but the animosity towards his term in office is petty and misguided.  There were worse, have been worse, and will be worse.  At least you're old enough to criticize him with some semblance of validity, though,  unlike most people who weren't around and jump on the "worst president ever" bandwagon.

I mean aside from one serious drawback (his then and current stance on Israel), I'm definitely on board with the "not as bad as everyone thinks" bandwagon.  I believe you've said it before best: he was as honest as people always want their president to be and held himself accountable.  He just had the bad fortune of having to be accountable for something.

[TL]

I've never understood why so many people so strongly dislike Carter. A big part of it seemed to be that he was actually honest about certain things rather than just telling the american people what they wanted to hear.

[Super Dude]

I've never understood why so many people so strongly dislike Carter. A big part of it seemed to be that he was actually honest about certain things rather than just telling the american people what they wanted to hear.

Sort of ironic, isn't it?  Give the American people what they want and suddenly they don't want it anymore.

[Adami]

I've never understood why so many people so strongly dislike Carter. A big part of it seemed to be that he was actually honest about certain things rather than just telling the american people what they wanted to hear.

I only have one thing against carter. I'm sure Super Dude knows what it is.

[MasterShakezula]

I've never understood why so many people so strongly dislike Carter. A big part of it seemed to be that he was actually honest about certain things rather than just telling the american people what they wanted to hear.

Sort of ironic, isn't it?  Give the American people what they want and suddenly they don't want it anymore.

What is the source of this indecisiveness of US-ers?

[Super Dude]

I've never understood why so many people so strongly dislike Carter. A big part of it seemed to be that he was actually honest about certain things rather than just telling the american people what they wanted to hear.

I only have one thing against carter. I'm sure Super Dude knows what it is.

As I'm pretty sure we've established before, same one as me.

I've never understood why so many people so strongly dislike Carter. A big part of it seemed to be that he was actually honest about certain things rather than just telling the american people what they wanted to hear.

Sort of ironic, isn't it?  Give the American people what they want and suddenly they don't want it anymore.

What is the source of this indecisiveness of US-ers?

This oughta help

[El Barto]

I've never understood why so many people so strongly dislike Carter. A big part of it seemed to be that he was actually honest about certain things rather than just telling the american people what they wanted to hear.

I only have one thing against carter. I'm sure Super Dude knows what it is.

As I'm pretty sure we've established before, same one as me.

Yeah, I'm a bit puzzled by this.  It seems to me like the Camp David Accords certainly made things quite a bit better for you guys.  What am I missing here?

[Super Dude]

Unless I'm mistaken about the bone Adami has to pick with him, mine is that yes he did that, but then spent almost all the time since then just bashing Israel.  And to be realistic, it made things better, but not massively better; instead of Egyptians attacking Israel from Egypt, now Palestinian terror groups are sneaking into, acquiring weapons, and then attacking from Egypt.

[El Barto]

To be perfectly honest,  you guys have a, let's say, highly subjective perception of what constitutes bashing.  But aside from that,  it's hardly fair to blame Carter because what peace they do have isn't idyllic.  He improved the situation, and if one or both sides have subsequently allowed it to deteriorate, that's hardly Carter's fault. 

[Adami]

To be perfectly honest,  you guys have a, let's say, highly subjective perception of what constitutes bashing.  But aside from that,  it's hardly fair to blame Carter because what peace they do have isn't idyllic.  He improved the situation, and if one or both sides have subsequently allowed it to deteriorate, that's hardly Carter's fault.

The peace with Israel and Egypt was a good plan that was poorly executed. But that has nothing to do with my dislike for him, and I don't just say he's "bashing" Israel, it goes wayyyyyy beyond that, but I doubt you're going to see it anywhere near the way we do, so I'll leave it at that.

But as far as the Egypt/Israel thing, our issues are our problems and America isn't to blame.