-
Conscripts in a Ponzi Scheme
June 13, 2011 | 127 comments
-
Social Security and the Ghost of Ephram Nestor
April 6, 2011 | 21 comments
-
Dracon for President?
February 22, 2011 | 48 comments
-
Mitch Daniels and the CPAC Moment
February 14, 2011 | 78 comments
-
The New America Firsters
February 7, 2011 | 43 comments
A Further Perspective
The Real State of the Union
It’s probably as bad as Obama’s speech.
(Page 2 of 2)
Second, President Obama himself took credit for a successful conclusion to the war in Iraq later in his speech:
American leadership has been renewed and America’s standing has been restored. Look to Iraq, where nearly 100,000 of our brave men and women have left with their heads held high. American combat patrols have ended, violence is down, and a new government has been formed. This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people, while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq. America’s commitment has been kept. The Iraq war is coming to an end.
So: he blames Bush for getting us into the war and racking up huge deficits, and then takes credit for winning it. Some people thought you had to go to Harvard Business School to learn how to diss your predecessor.
Finally, talking about the deficit commission, he said: “And [the] conclusion [of the bipartisan fiscal commission] is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it …” This is more difficult and, alas, way above the pay grade of this president, which is why even his supporters have complained about his speech. We can never, never cut the deficit (by which is meant cutting it substantially, perhaps even balancing the budget) by cutting only “excessive” spending, for two reasons. First, we will never all be able to agree what’s excessive. And second, to balance the budget we may have to cut expenses that we all agree are important.
Johnny needs braces on his teeth. He really does. Unfortunately, in the real world, we have to buy food and homeowner’s insurance first.
To some extent, the president may be the victim of his own success. His address in Tucson was widely acclaimed. He was said to have had perfect pitch.
It was never true. He received the accolades only because until then he had been so bitingly partisan, and because being so bitingly partisan was precisely what he had advertised himself during his 2008 campaign as not being.
For one brief — shining? — moment he stopped. He went to a funeral. He didn’t bash his opponents. People said he was terrific. He may even have believed it.
But it wasn’t true.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (72) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Daniel Oliver
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/27/the-real-state-of-the-union
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Intelligent Design| 1.27.11 @ 7:34AM
The national debt is equal to $126,000 per taxpayer, or $14 trillion, and it is growing by more than $100 billion per month. But our elected representatives are still talking about ways to cut spending by only $100 - $400 billion over several years. Are they totally brain-dead, or just crooks?
What we need are draconian cuts in federal spending, starting with the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan now, not next month. Also cut all UN funding, sell Amtrak, sell the USPS, eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education, cut the State Department budget in half, cut Interior by 60%, fire 500,000 civilian government workers, eliminate the hundreds of millions in aid Obama has pledged to the so-called Palestinians, repeal Obamacare, dismantle Social Security (there is a way), and so on.....
Eliminate the entire federal income tax system by enacting the Fair Tax legislation introduced in Congress long ago. This is not a VAT, and not a flat tax on income, but a simple national sales tax. www.fairtax.org. It would lead to unprecedented economic growth.
vtwin| 1.27.11 @ 10:13AM
The “withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan” YES!!!!
But, “dismantle Social Security,” sorry not one dime of the nation’s $13 trillion debt is the result of Social Security or Medicaid spending, both of which are running surpluses. Paul Lying was blowing ideological smoke up your ass during his rebbutal.
vtwin| 1.27.11 @ 10:14AM
Sorry, rebuttal.
Steve A| 1.27.11 @ 10:19AM
"Social Security & Medicaid are running surpluses".....Perhaps Sam Kinison has returned from the dead. You are too funny.
vtwin| 1.27.11 @ 10:47AM
Yes, Social Security alone nearly $3 Trillion.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html
Tom| 1.27.11 @ 11:41AM
Vtwin,
You're a grownup. You know those assets are just government IOUs. To pay them taxes will have to be raised, spending cut, or both. There is no lockbox. There are no real assets. The simple fact is Social Security surpluses have gone into the general fund for decades.
And now the situation is worse because Social Security revenue no longer matches spending. The program will have growing deficits from this point forward absent some fundamental reform. It aint gonna be pretty.
Al Adab| 1.27.11 @ 12:51PM
What would my personal net worth be if those payroll deductions for SS had gone into my own IRA or $01 or some such? I would also have the money available for medical expenses should it become necessary. I could spend it, borrow against it or take the earnings for income.
Instead the Federal government spends the money as it comes and promises to pay a stipend out when we reach a certain (changable?) age. While I respect that promise, I would rather have the cash thank you very much.
vtwin| 1.27.11 @ 1:58PM
Since the inception of Social Security how my years has the Congress failed to fund Social Security?
I’ll give you a hint it’s the same number as the numbers Republican that would remain in the House should the house Republicans vote to repeal Social Security.
vtwin| 1.27.11 @ 2:08PM
TOM, I agree with all your points except “the program will have growing deficits from this point,” really depends on the economy.
But, I think any possible future shortfall could be eliminated by simply removing the income cap that’s subject to the Social Security tax.
Tom| 1.27.11 @ 3:59PM
Vtwin,
I will concede if the economy soars SSI deficts may disappear. But that could be said of any tax revenue. But do you really think it is likely?
Raising or eliminating the wage cap from SSI would not have as big an effect as you think. Unless you also decouple contributions from benefits. IF we eliminated wage caps AND held max benefits constant SSI it should eliminate any deficits. But that is probably not politically possible.
This is good reading.
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
JmsA| 1.27.11 @ 3:57PM
No, Tom, vitwin doesn't know. After all, he's the same dufus that claimed that statistics played no part in the government's actuarial Social Security and Medicare projections, though the government links he provided were tittled "Actuarial Publications."
vtwin| 1.27.11 @ 10:58AM
And, Medicare over $2 Trillion in assets.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
Welcome back Sam Kinison!
Ryan| 1.27.11 @ 11:22AM
Surpluses are not arguments against reform. It still doesn't mean that the systems need work.
Ryan| 1.27.11 @ 11:23AM
Sorry, DON'T need work. Rolling with too many negatives there...
vtwin| 1.27.11 @ 2:18PM
Social Security Medicare “surpluses are not arguments against reform,” agreed.
But, Social Security Medicare surpluses prove that neither is responsible for the nation’s $13 trillion debt.
Tom| 1.27.11 @ 4:01PM
Vtwin,
You're right. In fact public debt would be much higher if not for SSI and Medicare surpluses. However, Social Security is running a deficit now and probably will until there is reform of some sort. So it is indeed contributing, in a small way right now, to debt.
Frisbee| 1.27.11 @ 5:52PM
vtwin wrote: "But, Social Security Medicare surpluses prove that neither is responsible for the nation’s $13 trillion debt."
That's not true. If some government branch has "assets" of 3 trillion on its books, it doesn't tell you where the assets came from or if they're paid for. It just means that SS and/or Medicare were given that amount with the bill being sent somewhere else.
CopyKatnj| 1.27.11 @ 1:09PM
Social Security now seen to run permanent deficits
Jan 26, 7:06 PM (ET)
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sick and getting sicker, Social Security will run at a deficit this year and keep on running in the red until its trust funds are drained by about 2037, congressional budget experts said Wednesday in bleaker-than-previous estimates.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110127/D9L0BDUG0.html
vtwin| 1.27.11 @ 2:12PM
Solution: eliminate the income cap that’s subject to the Social Security tax.
CopyKatnj| 1.27.11 @ 2:23PM
Why would I give this advise any consideration when you stated that SS was solvent when it clearly is not according to the references of two articles I posted here.
Tom| 1.27.11 @ 4:05PM
Technically it is solvent. The problem is its solvency is predicated on the government paying its debts. ANd how likely is that?
Nunya| 1.27.11 @ 5:01PM
THIS government paying off its debts? Never going to happen. Never.
It's easier to debauch the currency by turning the printing presses on high, and then pay off the debts with worthless money.
Buy gold and silver.
CopyKatnj| 1.27.11 @ 2:17PM
Thursday, January 27, 2011
By Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) – The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that Social Security will effectively run a $45-billion deficit in 2011 and continue to run deficits totaling $547 billion over the coming decade.
The admission comes in the CBO’s semi-annual economic review that projects federal spending, debt, and economic growth. In the report, the CBO also examines the impact of projected economic performance on the trust fund that nominally funds Social Security.
http://cnsnews.com/news/articl.....lion-defic
vtwin| 1.27.11 @ 2:26PM
Solution: eliminate the income cap that’s subject to the Social Security tax.
Tom| 1.27.11 @ 4:09PM
Vtwin,
That only works if you keep the benefits cap. If you allow benefits to rise along with revenue the effect is minimal.
Alan Brooks| 1.27.11 @ 4:06PM
Vtwin, we have to get with the program, funds must be given to their well-off relatives. If one of Tyrrell's elderly kin has a pile of dough but wants govt funds for, say, that extra trip to the Caribbean, or a new car, we must accept it- otherwise we are bolshie and coldhearted.
Tom| 1.27.11 @ 4:48PM
Alan,
You are talking about a fundamental restructuring of SSI. It was never intended to be a means tested welfare program. If that is what you want advocate for it and lets see how it flies. But realize that if it becomes means tested it also becomes just another welfare program.
Alan Brooks| 1.27.11 @ 9:12PM
Tom, tell it to libertopians, not me.
I'm only interested in scientific progress; economics is big shark eat the little shark, I don't care that billionaireds get govt funding. But they don't dislike govt-- only pretend to. And you know that.
I mean to say, the minutiae of SS doesn't interest me anymore, or Food Stamps, or Section 8, or any of it.
Nor does the finance involved in ethanol subsidies, Amtrak, or the 27 cents kicked over to the Soap Box Derby.
But I will go with the program.
Okay?
Tom| 1.27.11 @ 9:45PM
Alan,
Scientific progress would solve an awful lot of things. I'll agree with you there.
Tom
David T| 1.27.11 @ 11:53AM
ID--I'll see you and raise you one Dept of Agriculture...
Alan Brooks| 1.27.11 @ 4:10PM
"Daniel Oliver ... served as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under President Ronald Reagan."
Reagan. Always invoke his sacred name.
wodiej| 1.27.11 @ 8:51AM
Anyone who cannot see right through Obama now is not paying attention. Freezing spending....you've got to be kidding me? Who in their right mind would buy that? We don't need to freeze it, we need to DECREASE, DEFUND AND CUT OFF all the freebies, perks, non essentials including military. Why do we have thousands of troops stationed in Germany, England and other foreign countries? SS and Medicaid need reform as well. Lots of fraud and waste.
Dan Hirsch| 1.27.11 @ 9:10AM
Has anybody noticed that the USPS is advertising overnight mail packages for a flat $4.95 charge. Are they not undercutting Fed Ex and UPS significantly? Are they not constantly receiving billions of taxpayer cash to make up their losses?
Anybody?
In the 1960's when they introduced Zip Codes to improve service, overnight delivery of letters bearing a $0.04 stamp was normal and expected in limited areas. Have they just raised first class postage to $4.95?
Do we really want these people being our brain surgeons?
Don't tread on me!
Hell, GET OFFA ME!
Ryan| 1.27.11 @ 10:10AM
It's Priority mail flat rate, NOT overnight (and technically NOT First Class). And yeah, it's probably an undercharge, subsidized by tax dollars.
It's a HUGE boon for us ebayers, though.
Ed| 1.27.11 @ 10:33AM
The USPS is one of the few Federal Agencies that has actually improved its service (probably due to using computers and supply chain management software and networks - these work for UPS and FedEx too).
On the whole though, the Feds screw up most of what they attempt to do.
Ryan| 1.27.11 @ 11:21AM
It still hasn't translated into profitability. They operate too many offices at a loss, and too many retired/benefits paid out.
Stephanie| 1.27.11 @ 12:16PM
I understand they are talking about closing a huge percentage of the post offices around the country. Curious at what that will do to delivery service.
skip| 1.27.11 @ 4:51PM
Last year USPS lost more than 7 billion dollars.
If they operated 5 days a week for 52 weeks (no, I'm not Kinison reincarnated) it translates to over a 22 million dollar loss per day.
Now subtract all their holiday days (15?, 30?)off and the loss is higher per day for each paid day off.
hardcard| 1.27.11 @ 9:19AM
SOTU: double talk, double think, black is white and visa versa, all lies!!!!! WAKE UP !!!!
A Conservative in Liberalville| 1.27.11 @ 9:37AM
I think most of the conservative media and even those on this board have missed the point of Barry's speech. This was not a policy speech. He was not talking to conservatives who will never support him, he was not talking to his liberal base who will most definitely support him regardless of what he says. He was speaking to the squishy, generally mindless folks who describe themselves as "middle of the road" and "independents".
This was a purely political speech setting the stage for re-election using the same faux centrist language he used to get elected in the first place. Listening to the speech with that in mind, it was brilliant politics.
Obviously, in terms of governing, it does not matter what he says, it is the policies he supports and enacts. Nothing there has changed.
But what he says is the only thing that the mindless "middle of the road" base their opinions on because if they actually held some convictions about the effects of policy they would not be "independents".
These people simply want to feel good and Barry's speech with it's surface level feel of bi-partisanship and harmony is music to their ears. Watch as the his new approval numbers take a jump.
As for me, I have never been more afraid for my country than at this moment.
Conservative View| 1.27.11 @ 2:09PM
Unfortunatly I must agree with you completely. The SOTU speach was a political bit of theater, not an expression of political will. I found little within it that the President actually commited himself too.
Too true, far too true, that so many will "feel good" about the Presidents' speach. There was actually nothing to feel good about. Not one word of a single plan was given. He wants to save money - - - how? He wants to fix the imagration problem - - - how? He wants to improve our exports - - - how? He will accept changes in Obama Care if they are good changes - - - good acording to whom?
I too am very afraid for my country. Either we as individuals take greater responsibility for whom we elect, and those that we do elect put America first, or this country is in for a very difficult time.
vtwin| 1.27.11 @ 9:48AM
“Even President Obama's own cheering squad thinks he flubbed the State of the Union speech “
“Two polls measured immediate reactions to President Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday night. A CNN/Opinion Research poll found 84 percent of speech-watchers reacted positively to his message, 52 percent very positively. A CBS News poll found 91 percent of watchers approve of the proposals the president made.”—Washington Post
http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....ate_o.html
Daniel, try pulling your head out of your partisan butt once in a while.
Dan Hirsch| 1.27.11 @ 9:54AM
vtwin;
You may want to take a few days to see what the longer term response to the SOTU address. I'm a bit skeptical of any polling that shows 91% agreement in this country today. Aren't you?
You should be.
TommyS| 1.27.11 @ 11:21AM
Who were they polling? Getting 91% of the people to agree on anything seems a little bit far fetched.
Chris| 1.27.11 @ 12:07PM
They asked them if they liked Bacon. The ONLY thing in this country 91% agree with.
Dan Hirsch| 1.29.11 @ 9:49AM
No, Chris. Bacon usually polls north of 100%....
HeeHaw!
Any minute MSNBC will be saying Obama's SOTU polls north of bacon!!!
Don't tread on me!
Sid Vicious| 1.27.11 @ 2:16PM
So that must be why Uhhhbama's RCP average job approval has fallen more than two percentage points in less than 48 hours!
JmsA| 1.27.11 @ 7:12PM
It's now +47/-51%.
Al Adab| 1.27.11 @ 10:08AM
The real state of the Union? Our condition is simple. Twenty-seven states are currently suing the federal government over the "health care" bill. Ten states are taking stands toward nullification with two of those having voter approved referrrenda opting out of the federal mandate. At the same time the federal government is suing certain of the states over immigration policy enforcement.
The bonds of fraternity and common interest which bind the States into the Union are as tenuous today as ever in the last 150 years. Nothing in the speech concerned itself with this threat of disunion. While not overt, there clearly is a tendancy away from common ground and that represents a clear and present danger to our Union.
TommyS| 1.27.11 @ 11:23AM
Read my lips: IT'S THE SPENDING STUPID!
CopyKatnj| 1.27.11 @ 11:51AM
Can we clear things up right now about "tax cuts", the only item reduced was SS tax by 2%. The result of that reduction directly lead to Federal income tax increase. I get paid bi-weekly so maybe I'm a little late in pointing this out. When getting paid in this manner, any change is very noticeable. Is it true that my net take home was increased, Yes by a small amount. Because of the way taxes are calculated there wasn't a federal tax cut even by name, it was extending the Bush tax cuts and then skimming some more off.
However, this does have some opportunities. Bush 41 had pushed for a program where 2% of SS tax be privatized. In effect that is what we now have. I suggest that we take advantage of this as we now have an opportunity to prove if that idea works. I have now increased my 401K amount to equal the 2%, which will now not be taxed and return my federal withholding to last years amount.
Gregg| 1.27.11 @ 12:44PM
"He was linking foreign students, here on F-1 and M-1 visas, with the children of illegal immigrants. He was stealing a base in order to promote amnesty."
What is worse is Obama's unspoken premise:
That without the children of illegal aliens we cannot have an educated productive population.
Most populations have a reasonable mix of brains and talent.
PolishKnight| 1.27.11 @ 7:19PM
Gregg, what makes that claim amusing is it's sheer opposite to the truth: The illegals are welcomed by Democrats and crony capitalists alike because they're illiterate and willing to do lousy jobs on the cheap that they don't want to pay decent wages to locals to do.
Where oh where is a saavy Republican politician who will say the obvious: That jobs such as daycare and nannies for career women should pay a decent wage? That if a career woman is having a hard time paying for such a service so feels a need to pay an illegal to do the job, shouldn't that say something about HER priorities? Same thing with fast food: If we want a dollar menu so bad that we hire illegals at low wages, shouldn't that mean people should maybe eat at home more?
Hmmm?
There's an air of elitism of the notion that if someone isn't a doctor or government bureaucrat, then their job is for stupid people and should be outsourced or given to an illegal on the cheap. They're such LOSERS. In the meantime, if a CEO fails to show up for work at a bakery, then the bread probably still gets baked!
Next, it's obvious that maybe many schools have so many foreigners coming and going because they want to make money from those slots OR they don't want to give them out to those who don't qualify for race/gender preferences. Imagine... where our country would be if the roads, schools, and research and development labs had the best scientists available rather than the ones who fit a race and gender quota...
Pat| 1.27.11 @ 12:52PM
The other night Father Obama spoke to his vast family, you, me and the gal next door. Our family, all 300 million of us, is in serious trouble and everyone agrees with that assessment but Father Obama spoke with optimism, determination and a clear love for all his children. Since the 1930’s, America has truly been one vast family - by law we’re required to look out for each other, we have safety nets for those in need and we no longer cast our cousins into the streets to starve. And as a result of that watershed period in our history, you and I have 300 million relatives and counting, now that’s a whole lot of Christmas cards every year.
It’s true some of our cousins seldom work at a job, they prefer a life unencumbered by mundane responsibility – we watch out for them and slip em a few bucks when they need it. And we have some other cousins who maybe drink too much, snort happy dust up their nose or smoke dope, strictly for health reasons they say. Unfortunate addictions but we give them money anyway. Some of our cousins aren’t very nice people, we need to keep them locked behind bars for long periods but, still and all, we’re concerned with their welfare. Other cousins pour in from towns many of us never heard of and their strange accents keep us saying “Excuse me, say that again” quite frequently – just the same we realize these new relatives will need our help and we give it without hesitation.
And others of our cousins require no financial help, they’re a little slicker than we would like to see - they cleverly invent reasons to take our money although they’ve never been down and out. Actually, they live better than we do but claim their one and only concern is our welfare - they talk constantly about helping others but we’re often forced to admit they’re frequently just helping themselves. But Hey - we’re all family, right? We help each other without counting the personal cost and it’s OK to complain when life is hard – Father Obama will patiently listen and he knows what’s best for us. Remember, you can always choose your friends, but in this country - and by law - you can’t choose your relatives.
Peppermint Tea| 1.27.11 @ 12:53PM
A generation from now, a (Chinese?) historian will write how the 2011 SOTU was about feel-good ideas and dreamy visions of old ideas (solar, wind energy, education) while the debt ($14T), the deficit ($1.5T), unemployment (real rate of 17%), and Fed money printing ($0.1T/mo) should have been noticed. The historian will probably reference the Tucson slayings as an example of the media using any crisis to silence critics. And he will note that the U.S. was a house of debt, propaganda, costly foreign wars, silly and ineffective Homeland Security actions, aging population, etc., and was ripe for collapse just as USSR in 1989.
proreason| 1.27.11 @ 12:53PM
This excellent article proves my main point about the SOTU speech, and every speech Obama gives.
It's 100% about deceptions every time.
There was a time when presidents tried to make the country a better place. All this president does is blow smoke to hide the fact that all his comrades and controllers do is undermine the country in order to destroy it.
Gregg| 1.27.11 @ 1:11PM
It was widely reported that, during his Hawaii vacation, Obama read books by and about Reagan. Reagan was known by friend and even some foes as someone who could exude optimism. Make peopel feel good about themselves and their country, and that there was nothing Americans couldnt' achieve (if the government would get out of the way).
Lo and behold what do we hear from Obama flacks regarding the SOTU? Why that Obama was going to exude optimism. And in fact he tried. Even that pathetic repeat towards the end of the speech [I paraphrase}: "I know we can succeed. I KNOW we can!" But there was no certainty nor fire behind those words.
That Obama would read some Reagan books and try to co-opt "sunniness" is no surprise. If you've been watching carefully you've come to realize that the single word that best describes this man is:
Facade
The fake Greek columns during the acceptance speech
The "Office of the President-elect placard
The promise to chop huge amounts off of the executive branch costs results in $121 million
No American Flag lapel pin.
Then an American Flag lapel pin.
and so on......
This guy (and his acolytes) evidently think that if they put the right "face" on things, the work is done.
Hence the SOTU speech. He figures if he talks like a centrist everyone will think he's a centrist. Facade.
After all, it worked in 2008......
Louis Jenkins| 1.27.11 @ 1:30PM
Here's a quote from Ann:
Obama said, "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook."
And then the government outlawed Edison's great invention, made the Wright brothers' air travel insufferable, filed anti-trust charges against Microsoft and made cars too expensive to drive by prohibiting oil exploration, and right now – at this very minute – is desperately trying to regulate the Internet.
Watch what the man does, not what he says.
Read more: Hope, change and invest http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f.....z1CGGwi8xh
Timely Renewed | 1.27.11 @ 4:59PM
If the federal government really wants to help business, how about an across-the-board exemption from all federal regulations for the real innovators and job creators - small business? Because federal regulations are designed for (and all too often by) big companies, "one-size-fits-all" national regulations impose far higher compliance costs per employee on small businesses than on big business, which can afford to absorb the costs of large internal staffs and armies of lawyers to comply with massively complex federal regulations. Let the states regulate small businesses so the federal government can focus on the big corporate malefactors. Following the original meaning of the interstate commerce clause and freeing small business from federal regulation will do far, far more to unleash the job-generating power of small business than a dozen of Mr. Obama's token regulatory reviews. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
Redstateboy| 1.27.11 @ 5:08PM
from what I'm reading ... Vtwin is the only one who actually believes what his Messiah says.
Willy| 1.27.11 @ 5:28PM
Anyone who believes that Obama has changed course as a result of the last election should immediately seek medical attention. This man, and his Chicago handlers, have been clear about their view(not yours) that we are so gullible and ignorant that we would elect a president with less experience than a junior bank vice president to lead an entire country. I try to stay informed. Apparently, lots of people do not.
Frisbee| 1.27.11 @ 5:47PM
Is history repeating itself? Permit me a little freedom with Percy Bysshe Shelley's Ozymandias:
"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Obamazandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away"
Al Adab| 1.27.11 @ 6:44PM
Very nice job.
How about "...all our dreams of yesterday are one with Ninevah and Tyre."
John Bailo | 1.27.11 @ 6:35PM
The only thing I got out of the speech is that we're supposed to be competing with Sputnik...hey, maybe we need to put a man in orbit..or...
But seriously, it's actually quite dangerous right now, because the most democratic body in the US, the House of Representatives, is firmly in the hands of the Teapublicans...and at the same time we are saddled with a lame duck President and Senate leadership, who, if everything were up for grabs in 2010, would be lining up book tours on college campuses by now. As such, one sees the desperation of trying to cling to power, when there is nothing to support it.
Marc Jeric| 1.27.11 @ 9:28PM
Abu Hussein al-Mombassa (or wherever in Kenya that marxist Muslim was born) gave us his energy policy - wind and solar.
Both wind and solar energy comes from the sun - which is a continuous uncontrolled hydrogen bomb explosion. They are both, after 50 years of experimentation on small and large applications, unreliable, enormously expensive, and environmentally destructive. Obama failed to mention nuclear power plants - the most reliable and the safest source of electricity, and also, the safest industrial installations, in the history of industrial age. Carter killed that industry in the 1970's by naming the Sierra Club geberal counsel to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, together with the Massachussetts consumer protection guru - a pair of real nuclear experts! Carter also killed the already under construction Clinch River reprossesing plant that would have used the spent nuclear fuel to produce electricity while reducing the nuclear waste to negligible amounts. Obama - our energy expert!
PolishKnight| 1.30.11 @ 7:08PM
Marc's point is useful to consider and put into perspective that Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan, don't tend to reverse bad policy decisions made by their predecessors. In addition, they rarely use the power they have as chief executive, under the constitution, to propel a conservative agenda.
Here are a few executive orders and policy directives Republican presidents could have done in the past 30 years:
1) Enforce the civil rights act and eliminate, and prosecute, all instances of race and gender preferences not justified under the act. This includes the notion of "diversity" which openly endorses race and gender discrimination without a pretense of holding an individual agency or company that engaged in discrimination accountable.
2) GW Bush allowed federal marshals to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens guarding their homes and helping to keep neighborhoods safe under the pretense that these individuals were a DANGER to community. Bush should have investigated the matter and prosecuted bureaucrats who violated these people's civil rights.
3) Rather than attacking microsoft for it's monopolistic practices, instead sign off an executive order for federal agencies to buy as many alternative OS's when possible and cost-effective. This would give these other OS's consumer market credibility and encourage developers to write their applications for them.
Gretchen| 1.29.11 @ 7:18PM
The State of the Union is that the Union is in a state!
dbrusiee| 1.29.11 @ 10:57PM
I can think of a hundred comments to this article but will only leave one at this time. What did Obama recommend we do to stop more companies from outsourcing or relocating overseas? I don't recall him even bringing this up.
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 4:39AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 3:26PM
Instead the Federal government spends the money as it comes and promises to pay a stipend out when we reach a certain (changable?) age. While I respect that promise, I would rather have the cash thank you very much
Very nice job..