The Republican­s are treating the American people as complete dopes

True. Not like this Administration that claims taxing millionaires at a minimum of 30% will reduce the debt and save educational, research and medicare.

The false choices by both parties treat Americans as both dopes. The choice is not higher taxation or spending cuts, the choice is between higher taxes AND spending cuts or financial disaster.

The two words missing from last nights speech...Simpson-Bowles. Until then this President is not serious.

Alan,

I agree we need both - but I heard President Obama specifically mention his proposed compromise with Boehner that would have raised taxes AND cut costs.

FAIR tax reform and aggressive but reasonable spending cuts are the answer - why is it so hard?

It's looks like the Republicans know that President Obama is going to win re-election and it's driving them crazy.

Alan, NJ

Not like this Administration that claims taxing millionaires at a minimum of 30% will reduce the debt and save educational, research and medicare.

I don't recall Obama claiming that imposing fair tax rates on the wealthy would "save" education, research and Medicare. Do you have a quote for that, or are you just making stuff up?

Actually he did say that if we didn't fix the tax code so that the top percentages were paying their fair share that those items, education, research, and medicare would have to be cut. His exact words were that "you can't have it both ways". He also explained that when billionaires do not pay their fair share, the rest of us get to pick up the slack, either through cuts, or by paying more. Alan fails to mention that in his out of context nonsense.

It is a very sad day for America when the Republican's biggest FLATUS is their candidate for POTUS. What a SOTU!

I don't recall Obama claiming that imposing fair tax rates on the wealthy would "save" education, research and Medicare. Do you have a quote for that, or are you just making stuff up?

"Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else— like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both."

I don't tend to make stuff up.

Alan fails to mention that in his out of context nonsense.

How is Simpson-Bowles out of context? The President claims that the choice is between taxing the rich more or cutting programs. I claim that is a false choice as we will have to do both. The rest of us have has a free ride too because we have not had to pay more nor face cuts. We simply borrowed the difference.

Well, you did, in fact, hear him mention that he wanted a compromise. The problem was, no one ever heard the details of said compromise.

His talks with Boehner amounted to the children's game "I'm Thinking Of A Number".

See, Obama talks-a lot- but never Says anything. He seems to think it works for him.

It did- in 2008. It won't- in 2012.

I don't like Gingrich, and I hope he isn't the nominee. That said, I, and a majority of the electorate, will vote for him over Obama.

We see what Obama has wrought- and we don't like it. Therefore, we are "hoping" for a "change".

Amused In The Midwest

Actually he did say that if we didn't fix the tax code so that the top percentages were paying their fair share that those items, education, research, and medicare would have to be cut.

Alan NJ claimed that a tax increase on the wealthy was necessary to "save" those things, which is not the same thing as saying that if you want to reduce the deficit without cutting critical programs, you have to increase revenues. Have Republicans decided to deny arithmetic, now, along with global warming and evolution?

His exact words were that "you can't have it both ways".

So you disagree with Obama and you think that you CAN have it both ways. Have Republicans figured out how to have their cake and eat it, too?

@Houston!

Can you read?

So you disagree with Obama and you think that you CAN have it both ways. Have Republicans figured out how to have their cake and eat it, too?

As always you seem to think there two choices here (or maybe 4)

a) Raise Taxes

b) Cut Spending

c) Neither (having it both ways)

d) Both (Simpson-Bowles)

I don't know how I can put any clearer. The President is claiming (a) where as I am claiming (d). And yes I know there are overlaps around the edges but this is as simple as I can make it for you.

Alan, NJ

Can you read?

Can you? I already said that if you want to cut the deficit WITHOUT cutting critical programs, you need to raise revenues. Is that sentence too difficult for you to understand?

I think that I covered the alternatives except for doing nothing, which I agree would actually work since the ruinous Bush tax cuts will expire if Congress does nothing .

Can you? I already said that if you want to cut the deficit WITHOUT cutting critical programs, you need to raise revenues. Is that sentence too difficult for you to understand?

Simpson-Bowles proposes tax increases to raise revenue. So I think we agree on that.

I think that I covered the two alternatives except doing nothing, which actually would work since the ruinous Bush tax cuts will expire Congress does nothing .

I gave you 4 alternatives. You do not seem to accept that in addition to raising revenues we will ALSO have to cut critical programs (again Simpson-Bowles). This is the false choice the President is claiming. At the moment medicare is adding 10,000 new recipients a day. A tax of 30%+ on millionaires will not cover this expenditure. So even if we raise this tax as the President proposes additional borrowing is required to maintain the current obligations of the medicare program. However, if you can come up with a list of non-critical programs to cut I'm all ears.

Alan, NJ

I gave you 4 alternatives. You do not seem to accept that in addition to raising revenues we will ALSO have to cut critical programs (again Simpson-Bowles).

Some combination of spending cuts and tax increases is what virtually EVERYONE who is not a Republican agrees is necessary, including myself. I never said anything to the contrary. President Obama also agrees that both revenue cuts and tax increases are necessary.

What you seem to be ignoring is that the Republicans have become so extreme that they have uttterly rejected the Simpson-Bowles proposal because it includes some very modest revenue increases. The Republicans refuse to consider any tax increases whatsoever, except for taxing the working poor, who don't pay federal income taxes because they're already living one paycheck or tax hike away from homelessness.

yeah, thing is though, republicans will never agree to any tax increase !!!! per Grover.

Simpson_Bowles is dead on arrival from the repub stance !!!!

Hello Houston, it appears as if you, Alan and myself can agree on most of the issues regarding the real requirements to address our deficit and tax problem. Revenue cuts and tax increases are both necessary. What we probably won't agree on is how to go about doing it and at what rates. I agree the R's in Congress are adamant about not raising any taxes.

No Jo - I won't tell you why I don't like Newt, but if I may ask why don't you like Gingrich? Is it personal character issues, policy ideas or potential damage down the GOP ballot if he is the nominee? Ok, I'll admit the previous sentence outlined some of the reasons why I don't like him.

NoJo: See, Obama talks-a lot- but never Says anything. He seems to think it works for him.

Just because Obama doesn't say the things you think he should say, or the things that you want to hear, doesn't mean he isn't saying anything.

It may mean you aren't listening...

Alan NJ -- The President mentioned reforms to SS, Medicare etc. From the SOTU speech:

As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

No Jo - I won't tell you why I don't like Newt, but if I may ask why don't you like Gingrich? Is it personal character issues, policy ideas or potential damage down the GOP ballot if he is the nominee? Ok, I'll admit the previous sentence outlined some of the reasons why I don't like him.

1. He attacks Romney for "Vulture" capitalism when he has sucked at teat of government all his life, while attacking government. If we had more Romney's and less Gingrich's I believe we would have a better economy for everybody.

2. Led effort to impeach Clinton while fooling around.

3. Has legitimate social observation on certain kids not having a good role model to obtain a work ethic, then cloaks his solution in racist terms. Why not suggest that (evil) corporations open up intern programs for inner-city kids. Custodians at their own school, give me a break.

Yellowdog-Mark D

Hello Houston, it appears as if you, Alan and myself can agree on most of the issues regarding the real requirements to address our deficit and tax problem. Revenue cuts and tax increases are both necessary. What we probably won't agree on is how to go about doing it and at what rates. I agree the R's in Congress are adamant about not raising any taxes.

(I know you meant budget cuts, not revenue cuts.) There's a lot of room for differing opinions of where and how much revenues should be increased and budgets should be cut. But there's no room at all for Republicans. No tax increases, no how, no way, except for maybe taxing the poor. At least their outrage over the fact that about half of the population doesn't pay income taxes suggests they want to tax the poor. As for me, I hate paying taxes like everyone else, but I'd MUCH rather be in the 50% who have to do it than in the 50% who don't because they have little or no income to tax.

Houston - Yes, I meant both budget cuts and tax increases are needed. I hear you.

Alan agree completely on 2 and 3. On your point number 1, I do find it interesting that so many in the Republican primaries are buying into Newt's left sounding attacks on Romney. The idea of economic populism usually is something a R doesn't use.

The funny thing is that Gingrich seems conflicting, sometimes in a quest to answer a question he actually comes up with something I can agree with. Example - Initial stances on the Ryan budget, cap and trade/global warming, recent statements about immigration reform and questioning "vulture" capitalism.

Yes he is hypocritical, but I think his unpredictability issue in the eyes of the "GOP establishment" is the largest issue. On one of these debates while making a point, will he say something that will go counter to his party's dogma and platform?

I that suggest everyone should read Ameritopia. Once you do the words we all heard last night reveal an entirely different vision for America. Populist words are just that, popular. Many of the ideas Obama put forth can be easily found in the old Soviet Constitution. This used to be a country where we worked to defeat that kind of ideology.

I have always described myself as moderate first and only spoke of leaning democratic when pressed on the issue. That was until the 2008 election. After the blind hate(not all) from the right concerning the president and the tea party movement I began to believe I should distance myself from ever getting confused with the likes. The upcoming presidential race has left me running even further from the right.

The conversation you all above are having now is what our congress needs to do and this is why I am disappointed in them. Above we have 3 people with completely different view addresing the issues and not their differences. The republicans in congress won't even come to the table. To say no increased revenues when it is clear they are needed is not comprimising and its not helping Americans. To go even further and try and give tax breaks coupled with eliminating capital gains tax is surely a slap in the face. Don;t get me wrong the democrats are not much better but atleast they come to the negotiations seriously and not signing declarations.

My question for some republicans who would fit the role as "average american" is why do so many average americans vote for them when come the end of the day its not you who they are looking out for.

Obama says the same thing over and over every year and every speech.

Just how does doubling the capital gains tax help the middle class?

Republicans don't come to the table because the president and his cabnet does not want to compromise, they want congress to see it their way or no way at all! The President wants to lead this county down a socialist path, on the road to Communism!! When Obama comes to the table and asks for ideas from all parties and then works "together" then I will listen. What he is doing now is ramming his communist agenda down the trout of the American people! I am glad that congress is at least slowing him down! Until he desides to disregard the constitution and push his crab through anyway!!! He is a disaster to this country and I only pray people have the good since to vote him out!! As far as the republican canidates, Gingerich is the brightest of them all - if you have read any of his work or looked at what he has done in the last 10-12 years you would agree.

Congress was taken over(both chambers) in Jan of 2007 when Bush STILL had two years left. Unemployment was 4.6%, GDP was 3.5, and the DOW was steady at 12,600. What has happened since then...the housing crisis!! Can the Democrats spin and lie that they DID'NT cause it???

it was less about an agenda for Congress and more about the case for what he accomplished and the beginnings of a theme of why he deserves more time

Then it took about 40 minutes longer than it should have! Again no plan, just broad vague "feel good" BS.

Anybody But Obama 2012

Greetings yellowdog, as usual you have some interesting observations. I believe that our politicians look to campaign rhetoric to shift the emphasis off of what it will take to move forward to one of what will sound good to the electorate. You know, that elusive warm and fuzzy feeling.

Such rhetoric is fine for wannabe political office seekers. after all, in a struggling recovery who wouldn't look for change? Unfortunately an incumbent has to run on what they have delivered.

Governor daniels rebuttal may be viewed as pessimistic wrt obamas campaign/sotu message, but illustrates that neither side of the aisle or the WH really wants to tell the truth about our economy. One that it is driven by an attitude of entitlement, be it allowable tax deductions or government handouts to the poor and middle class. Even promoting a policy of more government is good ignors the inherent waste that occurs within day to day government operations.

My personal take would be for the government to put a moratorium on any new regulations, tax rate increases and new or expanding spending initiatives. Let the variety of government agencies find their own way to make more with less. Let the moratorium last as long as it takes to enact tax and spending reforms and to better utilize existing government facilities.

It won't create the warm and fuzzies, but it definitely will focus us all on the path needed for moving forward.

Naturally the usual caveates apply; war, natural disaster and/or global reccession.

RDG - There is no one right answer on why the recession occurred, it can't be pinned totally on the right, left, banks or even the consumer, although easy credit might be construed as being the main reason.

BTW - recessions are cyclical and so far appear to always have a different reason and circumstance for why they occur. Please don't fall into the stupidity and incompetence that many progressive and liberals display who claim that it is always the rights fault.

@Yellowdog on Newt

It's not that I'm looking for ideological purity it's the inconsistency. If you listen to Jon Mancin he understands that to have social programs that help you have to have a strong private sector to provide the funds. This is what Romney is all about. You may not like his wealth and some of the methods he used to achieve it but he really has fulfilled the American Dream and his caused the employment of hundreds of thousands of Americans directly. Let's be honest, Newt is a lobbyist. He is at best an academic but is really a career politician. I really don't understand why the base of the Republican party think he is a viable candidate for President. As I said before the candidate I would look at is Romney. If Gingrich is nominated I'm staying home and I know many independents feel the same.

On another point, Joe Mancin said that if you try and help everybody then you end up helping nobody. Listening to the President's speech last night I was left with the impression that he wanted the government to help everyone. That is just not possible.

We need more liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.

We mainly follow the republican ideas because they are not Europe's ideas. Republicans are not set on taking my rights away.

Demoncraps are trying it at every turn and when caught red handed with crap like Fast and furious or Solendra there is nothing done about it. Spend spend spend is not an answer at some point in time it has to stop. Tax millionaires and billionaires great but not if there income is from capital gains which is where most of the top gets their earnings.

Republican farts and its off with their head.

We have $15 trillion dollars in Debt. Obama wants to make it more than $16 Trillion by the end of the year. Daniels was right, this isn't a political problem it is a mathematical problem, the 1% in this country do NOT have $16 trillion dollars so even if Obama taxes them at 100% he can't pay his debts. So you can listen to Obama who wants you to believe the rich are evil and the source of all your problems which is a complete lie or you can help boot him out of office to send the message that we want this problem fixed. We understand that the 1% invest and create jobs. Taking their money away and wasting it in stupid deals with his friends like Solyndra which is what Obama does, isn't a solution, IT IS THE PROBLEM. Get rid of Obama, get rid of his CZARs, get rid of his spending habits and start paying down this debt. VERY simple. It isn't even difficult math. We have more debt than we can pay. And some of you accuse republicans of not being able to think???? Take a look at France, Italy, Spain, and Greece. This is your future if you buy Obama's completely dishonest view of FAIRNESS. How can you claim to be able to think and then be completely unable to understand the impending total collapse of the EU is because of the exact fairness doctrine that Obama is trying to sell you. He is trying to sell you something he knows is going to fail, completely destroy the middle class in this country and make us all dependent on the federal government. You can drink all the Kool aid now that you want, but when he is finished it will be rationed by the government and you will only be able to get the flavor and the amount that the government gives you persmission to have.

JohnQ1,

Your (lack of) intelligence is reflected in your limited vocabulary.

Hjack I am not sure if it does. I do not think that the effective tax rates of the middle class would soar with doubling but I do not have the data to support that. If doubling the capital gains tax leads to increase revenues it could "possibly" evenetually lead to a tax break later down the road when we are in much better shape.

Alan...

You're right. A report was released in Connecticut newspapers today stating that in 2008 our state's taxpayers spent $137 million on personnel and programs to deal with 2817 teenage mothers and their new babies. The programs run for the child's first five years of life. That's about $48,500 per teenage mother & child and about a quarter million for the five year period for each child born.

The economy has to be humming like a roulette wheel for that kind of spending on such a small number of people to continue on a year to year basis. And as the article made fully clear, this has turned into a cycle of teenage mother creating the next teenage mother who will create the next teenage mother. The pattern does not end, ever.

The money has to come from somewhere and obviously it's money that could be spent on other things that cannot be avoided like these teen pregnancies could have been avoided.

Boyd, do you read what you post? I also hate that talking point always brought up on taxes about taxing the wealthiest at 100% of income and you still cannot close the gap, its stupid, simple minded, and has no value. Taxes do not last 1 year, nor has any approach aimed at reducing this significant debt. If you tax them at 30% of income over 10 years that equals more than 100% of income now

Also, you then speak as if that is the ONLY source of income. No one is asking for the rich to cover the entire deficit. The question being asked of them is to contribute a greater share (I've said many times i hate the term "fair share" because I agree with Republicans when they criticize it)

I wouldn't be surprised if your next words were speaking of the 50% who pay no tax at all.

Jack in Portsmouth

My lack of intelligence?

Odd statement from someone who votes democrat.

My vocabulary is far from limited I just choose to use small words so you can understand.

Hjack - how does raising capital gains benefit the middle class? Quite simple, obama is channeling reagan, trickle down, doncha know!

The next time you hear a politician use the word "Billion" in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending your tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one if its releases.

A BILLION SECONDS AGO IT WAS 1959.

A BILLION MINUTES AGO JESUS WAS ALIVE.

A BILLION HOURS AGO OUR ANCESTORS WERE LIVING IN THE STONE AGE.

A BILLION DAYS AGO NO-ONE WALKED ON THE EARTH ON TWO FEET.

A BILLION DOLLARS AGO WAS ONLY 8 HOURS AND 20 MINUTES AT THE RATE OUR GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING IT.

Wow, it is going to be a very LONG campaign season for Mr. Obama. He started his campaign in the Spring of 2009 and hasn't stopped.

Yep, MSNBC is cover to cover with Obama articles.

Wrap up for Mr. Obama's SOTU speech: Continue the Socialist "TRANSFORMATION".

My vocabulary is far from limited I just choose to use small words so you can understand

Well then, go back up to the post I was referencing. In it you should have used "it's", which is a contraction of "it is", not "its", which is possessive.

And anyone who has to use the language you used to get his points across isn't the brightest bulb in the room.

Nope, you're just one of those one-dimensional, can't see the forest for the trees, kind of guys.

Timothy Geitner won't be back if Obama is re-elected. Well that is great news for REPUBLICANS!!!!

It is good that the President is going to get a chance to get away from Washington. He sure could use a vacation. I thought the President was going to present a new plan to revive the economy but the speech contained only old ideas and platitudes that I have heard before. The President implied that there would be a time when we could start paying down the debt. To do that, the budget first has to be balanced but the White House is forecasting red ink for as far as the eye can see. Years ago the President promised that the 2012 federal deficit would not exceed 229.27 billion dollars. To date the President has failed to explain how that is to be accomplished.

Since our PUTUS was allowed to rerun his SOTU speach, perhaps I may be allowed me to rerun mine . . .

State of The Union

Ours was once the land of plenty
where everyone shared a common theme.
If you finished school and worked real hard,
you earned keys to the "American Dream".

Uncle Sam prints toxic billions
and leads generations deeper in debt.
If climate change myth is not a hoax
why hasn't science confirmed it yet?

Let's replace all Progressive Legislators
with citizens of more noble cause . . .
committed to Constitutional ideals while re-writing unconstitutional laws.

Otherwise remember the 4th of July with patriotic pride, not tears.
American exceptionalism and free-will
lived on earth for 232 years!

Dang I am so sorry that I messed up with one of the biggest words in the post.

The last time I knew I was far more than one-dimensional I can at least see what the anointed one is trying to do to this country.

2 Presidential candidates, each will blow over $125 million for a job that pays $400.000.00 per year. It must have a Great dental plan.

The take away: More war, more giveaways to the rich and no real help for working (and unemployed) people.

As far as The Sociopath in Chief's big speech to the assembled corporate stooges in Congress last night (Democrat and Republican), despite a con man's gloss of "populist" sentiment here and there it was mostly very right wing and not much different than what a Republican would propose.

Obama's recipe for creating jobs: Slash health, safety and environmental regulation coupled with corporate welfare and giveaways in the form of "Tax incentives" to businesses that open domestic production (not likely to be much help as many businesses pay NO taxes, now), even saying the public should help build factories for companies to entice them to bring jobs back to the U.S.

This is all very much in keeping with the master plan of big business and both their parties: Turning the U.S. into a low wage export platform. (This is what Obama means when he says the way out of our high unemployment is "exporting" and increasing our "competitiveness")

But wait, I have a better Idea!

Instead of trying to bribe corporations with tax breaks (which makes the deficit worse) how about telling them if they don't bring jobs back to the U.S. we will tax the @!$%# out of them, revoke their corporate charter and/or nationalize them and bring the jobs back ourselves?

That's more like what they would have done back in the 1960's when unemployment was 4%, incomes and standard of living were rising for just about everyone and the tax rate on corporations and rich people was wayyyy higher than today.

Matt

The Republican­s are treating the American people as complete dopes, hoping they don;t have the ability to understand the most important questions of our time and will simply be pacified with the partisan rhetoric that the GOP is slinging in response to Obama. Americans are smarter than that,

Really? Did you know that the fed held interest rates steady AND said they may do that for two more years? That is not a thriving economy. This just in too - Benanke is looking into more ways to "stimulate' the economy. That is another bad indicator.

"...The axis of Obama's speech was his invocation of the auto bailout as the greatest vindication of his economic policies. "This blueprint begins with American manufacturing," he said. "On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse… In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences."

By "responsibility" Obama was referring to the White House demand that auto workers take a 50 percent pay cut, along with the destruction of tens of thousands of jobs, major cuts in pension and health benefits for retired workers, and a ban on strike action, cementing the role of the United Auto Workers union as the company police force inside the plants…"

Obama's State of the Union address: War and wage-cutting

By Patrick Martin
25 January 2012

The State of the Union Speech delivered by Barack Obama Tuesday night was memorable only as a further milestone in the decay of American democracy.

While billed in advance by the White House and media pundits as a "populist appeal" by the Democratic president, effectively kicking off his reelection campaign, there was virtually nothing in the speech that even acknowledged the acute social crisis in America, let alone offering any solution.

The annual presidential addresses to a joint session of Congress have taken on an increasingly empty and ritualistic character—the same empty phrases, the same perfunctory ovations, the same gimmick of individuals placed in the First Lady's box to serve as cameos, the laundry list of proposals, either insignificant or overtly reactionary, the sickening appeals to national unity and militarism.

Four years after the official onset of recession, three years after the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression, the US economy remains mired in slump and the world economy is rapidly approaching a new cataclysm. Yet neither Obama nor his Republican opponents can acknowledge the overriding fact being experienced by hundreds of millions of working people: the desperate crisis of the capitalist system…

…Equally ominous and reactionary were the brief opening and longer closing sections of the State of the Union speech devoted to foreign policy. Obama began and ended the speech by invoking what he clearly regards as his trump card, the assassination of Osama bin Laden by a team of US Navy Seals….

…In his conclusion, Obama returned to his vision of a society run along military lines when he again invoked the raid that killed bin Laden. For Barack Obama, the cohesion of a team of trained assassins is the highest form of human solidarity.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/sotu-j25.shtml

Conservatives/Fiscal Conservatives -- Not all your posts are invisible yet. Frustrating preaching only to the choir, isn't it? Too bad the left/liberal posters don't re-read a few of your posts. Oh well, at least I'm reading.

The look on Cantor's face? Terror at how fast his country is going down the toilet. Another four years of the current executive branch and full socialism will be achieved. Soros and his followers getting richer and richer and more and more powerful and more and more in control. I've watched this "progressive" nonsense unfold for over 40 years, and the number of people who think something wonderful will come about is mind-boggling. It's like asking a rape victim who's in denial if she's been raped.

mari, are you actually capable of posting something intelligent? or nothing but beck/limbaugh/coulter talk-show sound bites? blah blah Soros, blah blah socialist, blah blah, blah.

the fact that the actual left is mad at Obama for not going left and staying right of center proves how hollow your nonsense really is

mari, even more ridiculous, in that "40 years of spreading socialism" we've had banking deregulation, oil deregulation, airline deregulation, top personal income taxes dropped from 70% to 29.5% (or less for the wealthiest), etc. all of these things that the RIGHT has been screaming for.

for your ONE Soros, I'll raise you TWO Kochs.

ener1 another Obama backed green energy company just declared bankrupcy. Only lost 118 million on this one though. Brings total Obama green energy loss to around 700mil. Shouldn't be long before he is a billion in the hole. Who can get away with blowing a billion tax payer dollars in a bet where the odds are worse than a game black jack?

Obama can.

lahater, funny how that works when the right wing pulls all tax credits and support for alternative energy while the chinese dump 30 billion a year into alternative energy. if we aided our own budding businesses like the chinese do, nmaybe we would see something similar to their growth rate, but instead we want to subsidize the wealthy and crush any competition that might threaten the already rich and powerful.

what is even more ridiculous is that the right wants to subsidize all those big oil companies despite their record profits.

"so slow he needs help to run a stop light."

Good line for this early morn, Ron.

The look on Cantor's face was a study. I have never seen ANYONE so willing to radiate hatred like Cantor does. It is becoming irrational with all of the "teabaggers". This has nothing whatsoever to do with policy differences, this is personal, which makes it poisonous and far more dangerous for the country.

Fairness. Just that and nothing more. Societies fail when there is too great a disparity between rich and poor. That is when countries collapse. The Republican leadership does not care about country and has made that abundantly clear by blocking anything that might help middle class workers. If it is not about the rich...it is unimportant.

They make that more graphic by having Daniels give the rebuttal. This is a man who is engaged in a war against his own citizens, determined to decimate the remaining protections that workers have. Daniels is heedless about what is going on with the recall in Wisconsin, sure that his Corporate masters will reward him in the end.

What kind of country do YOU want? One where all deference is given to the rich, and you work at their convenience, ready to pull your forelock in respect like they did in the old days? Ready to lose your job because some other desperate soul will work for less? Or do you want some protections from the excesses of the Koch brothers' attempt to buy this country outright?

I guess we will see.

I never thought a SOTU would bring tears to my eyes, but the moments with Gabby Gifford walking into the chamber and with the President were so touching and genuine.

Congratulations to President Obama for bringing optimism and pointing out what is possible when we all work together.

Steeler Fan,

The way she embraced the President brought tears to my eyes too.

Steeler Fan, Amy, I had the same reaction; very emotional.

Excellent post, newday. I agree with everything you said, and you said it well.

Funny how Daniels said the state of the nation is "grave" when Romney's ads of late keep referring to what he calls the President's "pessimism". They want it both ways.

BTW: Why can't I see Ron's post? I certainly don't have him on Ignore. . . .

Jack: Ron's post is at 1.2. Don't know why mine didn't post underneath his since I clicked on reply. Weird.

They do want it both ways, Jack. And it has nothing to do with country. I remember when both sides used to come together in economic declines to do their best regardless of party affiliation. Those days are past, I guess. Sad though.

Newday,

It is weird. I've had a couple of things like that happen recently.

I agree it's sad. But in a way it borders on treason to put party ideology ahead of the welfare of the country during what could have been (if the President hadn't acted) another depression. You have to wonder what would have happened if 9/11 had occurred in, say, 2011 instead of 2002. Would the Republicans have blasted President Obama and said it was his fault - he left the country vulnerable to attack? Or would they have rallied around him?

Congress was taken over(both chambers) in Jan of 2007 when Bush STILL had two years left. Unemployment was 4.6%, GDP was 3.5, and the DOW was steady at 12,600. What has happened since then...the housing crisis!! Can the Democrats spin and lie that they DID'NT cause it???

Jack , ron is either saving a spot on the first page for comments or ron is trying to say he has no thoughts. ;)

Well you don't have to read past the first page of comments to understand why this country is going down the toilet. Nothing but each side blaming the other. When the reality is that when voters continually send the same people to Washington but expect different results, it is the voters that are the idiots.

Believe it or not facts quite simply wreak havoc on both sides of the isle. Really, how stupid do you have to be to believe one side is more moral or ethical then the other? Both parties have done incredible damage to this country and its future, and there is nothing coming out of Washington to suggest that is ever going to change.

People serve in Washington for the benefit of themselves. They write laws that don't apply to them, they vote themselves raises, and the perks and benefits are over the top lavish. Insider trading is bad for everyone else, but not those in congress. Most work a lifetime for retirement benefits that pale in comparison to those members of congress get after what, 6 years of service.

The joke is on us, and Washington is laughing. We argue, and they reap. We suffer, and they reap. We scrap and scrounge and they reap. They have no interest in fixing anything, after all nothing but their financial security matters to them. They can't balance a book on their heads much less the budget. This country is being spent into oblivion, and we have nothing to show for it.

So keep sending the same idiots to Washington to reap even more. Because eventually, some day, some year, some of you are going to realize that trying to blame just one side or the other has gotten really old. Start blaming everyone, kick them all out of office, and lets start over. It is our only hope.

Good quesions, Jack. You have to hope they would have put partisanship aside in the case of an attack. But, I don't know....

Jack...

Would it have been done the same way it was done to Mr. Bush ???... who both parties and most Americans rallied around in the beginning, but was soon blamed for everything that happened from the "left" side of the aisle and the further to the "left" the uglier the blame became...almost reaching the point where Mr. Bush was just about piloting one of the airplanes.

And there still are 'truthers' out there who state that the former president was involved in planning the attacks !

What has happened since then...the housing crisis!!

rdg6, I was expecting a crash starting about 2004, the ridiculous price spiral and house flippers made it clear that the entire situation was completely unsustainable, especially when the realty "experts" kept saying that the situation would go on forever bacause demand was so high. lots of alarm bells started going off the more everyone insisted that it would go forever.

GBM, your first up quote was one of my favorites from President Obama's SOTU; beautifully written and spoken with feeling. This polling information is really good news.

Caught some of Morning Joe and Joe S was looking as sour as Eric Cantor and friends last night. Mike Barnacle made a good point--President Obama clearly has the trump card over the GOP by reminding voters that it is the GOP that has obstructed, filibustered, nearly allowed government to default; in his speech Obama successfully blamed the GOP.

Jody,

Joe S was looking as sour as Eric Cantor and friends last night

Love it!

Poor Joe S left early (sick) this morning! LOL!

Newt Gingrich’s lack of appeal to anyone, but the Republican base is not surprising. The real shock is that Mitt Romney has become almost as unelectable as Gingrich. In two weeks, Mitt Romney has gone from a net five point positive approval rating (39%-34%) to a net eighteen point negative approval rating (31%-49%).

Gee I wonder why so many folks have an unfavorable view of these two individuals. Just because they're both unrelentingly nasty, hateful, and dishonest doesn't mean they don't want to be loved just like everybody else.

Thank Jody, its a keeper I thought and was a beautiful ending to a great State of the Union.

Also caught Morning Joe this morning, yes Joe S was a rather dour fellow this morning, he left early must have been hard to have to defend his party following that brilliant speech, and Mike's observation was spot on.

Mika's Dad, today and yesterday, was most interesting, I have always been a fan of his and his ideas, he is a very wise man.

As Mika's Dad once said of Joe S. opinions....

"stunningly superficial"

a very wise man, indeed....HA!

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

I will have to agree with the liberals here. The republicans will bring about the downfall of our country, and it's strictly because they are so buried in money and old school politics that they refuse to come up with a candidate that can get rid of Obama.

They're going to ruin this country by allowing Obama to get a second term.

Sad, glad I dumped both parties.

I always enjoy Dr. Brzezinski's appearances; Tues he spoke about how none of the GOP candidates understands the world, recognizes the changes that have occurred, still view it at USA vs USSR but President Obama gets it. His new book sounds like an interesting read.

I agree! Dr. B's new book sounds like an interesting read!

Poll's are a funny thing aren't they?

If the 2012 General Election was held today and Ron Paul was the Republican Party's nominee, it appears Ron Paul would beat Obama with likely voters, according to yesterday'sCNN/ORC Poll.

Highlights include Paul besting Obama 49 to 45 percent among persons 65 and older, a voter segment considered to be the most reliable for turnout. Paul also beats Obama among persons 50 to 64 by a 47 to 45 percent margin. Taken together, according to the poll, voters over 50 deliver Paul a clean 48 to 45 percent win over Obama.

When factoring geography and racial background, Paul also carries substantial numbers.

Versus Obama, Paul defeats him 51 to 45 percent in the Midwest, 49 to 45 percent in the South, 61 to 35 percent in rural areas, and ties him at 47 percent in suburban areas. Paul also bests all other Republican candidates among non-white voters when matched against Obama, again carrying a solid quarter of those votes, and defeating Obama among white voters 54 to 41 percent, and men 49 to 44 percent.

examiner.com/libertarian-in-west-palm-beach/ron-paul-polls-strong-against-obama

We're in for a wild ride.

Jody writes: President Obama clearly has the trump card over the GOP by reminding voters that it is the GOP that has obstructed, filibustered, nearly allowed government to default; in his speech Obama successfully blamed the GOP.

Do you really not see the problem with this?

President Obama was elected in large part because of his promises to change Washington and reach across the aisle. Yet, he has utterly failed in this goal. I know that you will blame the Republicans for Obama's inability to accomplish this.....but the fact is that if Obama was an effective LEADER, he would have and could have improved the level of cooperation in Washington. All you really have to do is look to what Bill Clinton was able to accomplish while working with Republicans who disliked him and his policies as much as they dislike Obama and his policies. The fact of the matter is that Obama has failed to accomplish this goal because he refuses to listen to ideas and opinions that are contrary to his own. You cannot foster an air of cooperation when you shut the door on the opposing viewpoint and essentially proclaim that it is my way or the highway.

So, for me, the SOTU last night was more of the same.....it was a speech that he could have delivered in 2008. Nothing has changed. And for someone who campaigned on the buzzwords of Hope and Change, that is a huge problem.

President Obama is a smart guy, and he has a beautiful family. He seems like a genuinely nice guy. But his effectiveness as a leader is pretty much nil, and, frankly speaking, a leader is what this country desperately needs.

The elderly will get over Ron Paul just as soon as they realize that he wants to privatize medicare, which will effectively kill it.

Like the rest of the republicans, Ron Paul wants to raise taxes on the poor so he can protect the rich. Ron Paul doesn't even hide it. Ron even voted against increasing the minimum wage while he voted for every tax cut for the rich even for the billion dollar oil companies he voted for them to keep their special tax cuts. It seems his every vote is to protect corporations above the American people.

After Ron Paul voted to increase the deficit with tax cuts, he thinks that we should never raise taxes on the rich again and the poor should pay for the deficit with cuts to education, health care, food, food safety, medicare, protecting our air and water, etc ...........

Ron Paul thinks we should all be more concerned about protecting Romney's wealth than be concerned about America.

What say you? Do you vote to protect Romney's wealth or do you vote for America?

GBM, thanks for the post. Very true that those of us who are truly praying for the best for our country, our citizens, our future are indeed sensing the tide turning and are optimistic about the resiliance of America. Seems many on the right will state "God Bless America", but they don't really want it to occur unless they are in power. American people are sick and tired of the cold expressions, pessimism, and negativity the GOP/TP expresses about our country. Tired of the constant denials and discredits on any positive news/indicators for our country, but gleeful about any downturns. Their hopelessness and hateful words fly in the face of the American dream, exceptional-ism and the very God's Blessings they claim.

Jody, I had stopped watching or listening to politics on both sides in 2008 because I was fed up with the negatvity. I have just recently started catching Morning Joe clips on the internet. I do think it is balanced for the most part, love the guests. I don't agree with Joe on many opinions about Mr. Obama, but can tolerate him.

Americans First-3238795

The elderly will get over Ron Paul just as soon as they realize that he wants to privatize medicare, which will effectively kill it.

I don't even know where to start with your wrongness, Yes medicare will be privatized EVENTUALLY, thats like trying to use the lie that he wants to "get rid of social security" yes EVENTUALLY, those that depend on it now will continue to receive it, those younger than myself will be able to opt out and create their own interest bearing accounts what's so bad about that?

Like the rest of the republicans, Ron Paul wants to raise taxes on the poor so he can protect the rich

again another falsehood, he wants to get rid of taxes (IRS) for everyone, "

Q: You have been saying on the campaign stump, “I’d like to get rid of the IRS. I want to get rid of the income tax.” Abolish it?

A: That’s a good idea. I like that idea.

Q: What would happen to all those lost revenues? How would we fund our government?

A: We have to cut spending. You can’t get rid of the income tax if you don’t get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you’d have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn’t all that bad 10 years ago. There’re sources of revenues other than the income tax. You have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there’s still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn’t have it." Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series , Dec 23, 2007

Jill F., Tulsa, OK

President Obama was elected in large part because of his promises to change Washington and reach across the aisle. Yet, he has utterly failed in this goal. I know that you will blame the Republicans for Obama's inability to accomplish this

Nobody has to "blame" the Republicans when they proudly claim credit for it. Mitch McConnell crowed about how he has "deligitimized" Obama's presidency by denying him Republican votes on nearly every major issue. And as you know very well but pretend not to, McConnell also made the infamous comment that his number one goal was to make Obama a one-term president, rather than doing the job senators are elected to do: serving the public.

Houston,

Just because they're both unrelentingly nasty, hateful, and dishonest doesn't mean they don't want to be loved just like everybody else.

The trademark of a true Republican!

Houston...

Congrats ! That's the thousandth time I've read someone referencing a single sentence that Sen. Mitch McConnell spoke about 3 years ago. Should we also go back three years and start paring sentences out of Mr. Obama's past statements that we can dredge up every other day as if they actually are important ?

tony-268769-

The Majority Leader's words may have been three years ago, but his subsequent actions have underscored and furthered the intent of those words.

Exactly. As soon as President Obama likes something even when the GOP has supported it previously, it is DOA. The GOP seems oblivious to the reality that voters have caught on to their obstruction, including republicans outside Washington DC.

Hopefully, regular American's will open their eyes and see this group of Repubs as the obstructionists that they are!

Maybe the President should come out as really strongly in favor of ending abortion, eliminating gay rights, cutting taxes for the wealthy, eliminating any support for the poor, raising taxes on lower income Americans and shipping jobs overseas and then the Republicans would be put into a position of supporting the more intelligent things or (*OMG*) supporting the President.

@dirp101, they would oppose him, with straight faces....

Congress was taken over(both chambers) in Jan of 2007 when Bush STILL had two years left. Unemployment was 4.6%, GDP was 3.5, and the DOW was steady at 12,600. What has happened since then...the housing crisis!! Can the Democrats spin and lie that they DID'NT cause it???

Why didn’t our President call for Bowles-Simpson in the SOTU? Because as soon as it became the Bowles Simpson-Obama Plan it would be DOA.

If that is the case then Mitt Romney is right. he has to go because the well is so poisoned that he is unable to lead any more. I'm surprised to see the left admit this.

Republican obstructionists, WHAT A JOKE. Do you know how many bills the Republicans have passed in the house and sent to the Senate?? Last time I looked there were about 29 bills that have passed the house and Harry Reid won't even bring them up in the Senate for a vote. He is terrified they will pass antd that Obama will have to veto them, causing Obama election problems. So when you talk about an obstructionist congress make sure you know exactly who the obstructionists are, they are the democrats in the Senate, Obama could get anything he wanted voted on in the Senate, Harry Reid is his puppet. So don't try to sell me on the idea that the republicans are obstructionists because I actully know how to think. This is politics and Obama is selling you lies about fairness in order to avoid dealing with the reality that this country has more debt than anyone can pay and he is going to have to stop buying your votes with government programs. Bowles Simpson would pass. Congressman Ryan and the republicans already passed a 2011 budget and a future balanced budget plan that the Senate will not even vote on, The Senate has not been able to pass a budget for more than 3 years. Give me a break. Please get a clue, and learn how to actually think. The future of this country depends on you being able to understand reality and deal with it. Look at Europe-that is where fairness, the Obama definition of fairness, leads.

Boyd...

Your post is way too fact-based to be believed on this site !!!

In the recent edition of 'Time' or 'Newsweek' ( I forget which ) the president did a softball interview and the 'Bowles-Simpson' issue was brought up. He ranted that it was he who put that commission together and set them on their course...but did not respond to the reporter's question as to why the president threw his own appointed commission's report into the trashcan...and of course the reporter did not pursue further for an actual answer to his question, as is the norm.

And look what gets written here on 'Newsvine' as an acceptable response to why the president ignored his own commission's report....shock of shock....it's the Republicans fault !!! I guess the president rubbed his crystal ball so he could peer into the future and saw that the Republicans would gum up the commission's work...so he just decided 'nevermind' and tossed the commission's work out. Those rascally Reublicans at it once again !!!

Didn't we just hear and read a few weeks back that the president went to Austrailia during the final days of meetings of the "Supercommittee" he had put together because he just knew that those subversive Republicans would not listen to the Supercommittee's report or suggestions, so the president simply beat feet to the Land Down Under.

This has come to the point where the evil Republicans get blamed for ruining things before they even get a chance to have a discussion about the issues they get blamed for ruining...simply because the president's crystal ball told him (and Newsvine folks) that it would be so.

Sad to say, but a once great political party has literally surfeited the right to govern the country. Nothing displays that more clearly than watching the Republican reponse during the State of the Union to the President's statement that GM is once again the world's largest car manufacturer. They should have stood and cheered, but chose to sit on their hands. Anything that is good for America, but may reflect well on Obama, is anathema to the GOP. Whatever happened to "Country First" Senator McCain?

not hardly dennis, obama made a series of choices in 2011 that point more to his inability to look down the road and to act on what those with far more political and economic experience than he has.

Interesting that the obama tax cuts are going to expire in 2013. If obama was smart, he would start selling us all on the benefits of allowing them to expire across the board, after all an additional 3.5 - 4 trillion dollars every 10 years could give us a near zero debt level in 40 to 50 years.

Yahoo! audience reacts: 63% say Obama made the case for a second term

Obama more searched than GOP primary candidates

More people have searched for Obama today on Yahoo! than for all of the Republican candidates combined on the day of any recent GOP primary contest.

Yahoo! audience: Obama deserves more credit for Iraq; Bush tax cuts for wealthy should expire

Of nearly 13,000 participants in a poll of Yahoo! readers, 62 percent felt the president deserved more credit for bringing troops home from Iraq, and of 9,450 respondents, 84 percent agreed with Obama that it was time to phase out Bush-era tax cuts on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/yahoo-audience-reacts-65-obama-made-case-second-035052036.html

IR, that's great news. 63%!!!! Yes, we can!

even though Republicans are usually considered more business friendly and better for the equity market, of the five Presidents where the DJIA rallied 50% or more, three were Democrats (FDR, Clinton, Obama) and only two were Republicans (Coolidge and Eisenhower).

By today's standards, Dwight Eisenhower would be a moderate Democrat, to the the left of the Democrats such as Ben Nelson. Eisenhower governed as basically a New Deal Republican, rather than attempting to dismantle the New Deal as Republicans are trying to do now. That's probably why the markets did better under him, just like they have under FDR< Clinton, and Obama than under Republicans. I don't know much about Coolidge.

Actually, on average, the only President that got a bump in the polls after the SOTU address was President Clinton.

Damage - Do you ever have anything worthwhile to say? You are pushing my "I never ignore button" maxim with comments and jokes like that.

Hey, I'm sure you are happy to hear that a US soldier on trial will go completely free. He ordered his troops to shoot first and ask questions later and participated in a rampage that resulted in 24 civilian (women and children) deaths. No jail time not one day. Actions should have consequences even if they are blurred by the fog of war.

Yellowdog-- Just because you don't agree with what I have to say does NOT mean it is not worthwhile.

As for the soldier on trial. I haven't looked into that very much. If it was an indiscriminate slaughter involving no combat anywhere in the area etc...and was done just for the hell of it, then our guys are guilty and should be punished. But I don't know the facts. I have a feeling you don't either. You know how you libs are always saying not to judge people until you walked a mile in their shoes or know all the facts? Well, I'm gonna have to check into it. But then again, I recall a few months ago the people on this board were screaming in outrage that murderer Troy DAvis was going to be executed, and they knew next to NOTHING about the case. Funny how that works.

Unless you HAVE been under fire in combat, watched your friends get blown up and killed you don"t have any right to say sh#t. When will all of you understand the word "WAR". Having spent 2 1/2 years in combat (VietNam) being shot at almost daily, ambushed, positions over run, and seeing the carnage of what war does to people, then and still today, do not judge them. You don't know the mindset of a soldier then or even now. Out the people who sent them there on trial.

IR - Sorry, no sale on ANY POTUS deserving credit for sustained market growth or decline. Want to claim that a POTUS can sway markets on a temporary basis, fine. Long term no. The main issue here is that todays markets are global in nature and less political.

Of course obama was searched more, folks were looking at what obama promoted in the past vs what he is trying to promise today. Really a no brainer IR...

I found it telling that obama mentioned again (like last years SOTU) that he found 500 regulations that stymied growth. Other than spoiled milk why didn't he eliminate or negate the other 499 since then?Rather like throwing a dog a bone and never following through.

The DJA was above 13000 in January of 2008, when Obama took office in January of 2009 it was around 9000 after dropping below 8000 in late 2008, it is true it is higher now than when Obama took office, but the DOW has not increased in real terms, it is still lower than it was prior to the financial crisis. However the market is now so volitile that the average investor can not make any money in it. Even professional investors have trouble, just look at your 401k if you have one. The reality is the government can not regulate the economy, the government can not regulate stock prices, the government can not really regulate anything. Even policmen can not regulate murder or drugs, they can only investigate afterwards and hope to administer some justice. Obama is trying to sell the idea that he can prevent financial collapse, he can no more do that than policmen can prevent a murder before it happens. IT CAN'T be done, it is a lie and a waste of money to even try. Especially since the real culprits of the financial collapse--Fannie and Fredddie which were quasi government agencies and doing the bidding of the government to expand housing ownership, are exempt from any Dodd Frank regulations. Now that may make sense to someone who is unable to think but now tell me is that really fair that the cause of the problem is exempt from the supposed solution? If you actually think that France, Greece, Italy and Spain have done the right things and that all the regulation they have in place has prevented their financial collapse, then you have lost touch with reality. Obama is selling you something he can not deliver what he is promising, no one can deliver it because it is impossible for us to pay for what previous politicians have promised. I suspect he is smart enough to know that but is counting on the fact that most of you aren't.

How anyone, Republican or Democrat or Independent, could watch the President's speech and not feel this administration is putting us on the right track, is beyond me.

What a GREAT President we have.

Da Noid,

There goes the coffee from the nose to the monitor.

Da Noid---might I add---blah blah COMMUNITY ORGANIZER blah blah blah SAUL ALINSKI blah blah blah GOLF blah blah blah VACATION blah blah blah BUS.

Well Amy about 70% of the country must not be listening then.

Too busy trying to figure out how to buy gas and groceries.

I would add - blah blah blah BIRTH CERTIFICATE blah blah blah KENYAN blah blah blah REVEREND WRIGHT blah blah blah...

Steeler and noid, that's funny. Kind of like the left this morning"

Great post Gm,

Nice post Bev,

IGreat news IR

I don't know how anyone can not think this President is the bestest ever! (Amy B. paraphrased)

Da Noid, good job. There seems to be an absence of many right-wingers this morning which is typical whenever President Obama hits a bases loaded homerun! They will appear after they receive their talking points from Frank Luntz and Karl Rove, a lot of blah blah blah.

Some are absent and the rest are frantic to find something to spin about that speech Jody.

noid,

Isn't there enough acrimony without creating more? In searching for good information I get so damned sick of the absurd generalizations tossed forth on this board, by both sides.

Whilst not agreeing with everything said this conservative enjoyed the speech, is sick of congressional obstruction and inaction, and at this point may sit the election out, or even vote for Mr. Obama.

It is possible, indeed essential to disagree without rancor.

ahahhahaahha.....

All correct!

I smell FEAR!

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

and I guess they are also waiting to hear from Foix Noise and Rush, Sean etc......heaven forbid they should try to seek the truth.....because we know they can't handle the truth!

Obama's stump speech for the next ten months:

"(Noun) (verb) bin Laden. Rich people suck! " Blah blah blah blah blah....."Some people are making a lot of money and that's wrong....blah blah blah blah......Stop picking on me because I'm Black....blah blah blah blah (noun) (verb) bin Laden". "Blah blah blah blah.......Did I mention rich people suck?".....Blah blah blah

Speaking of Hemorrhoids, did anyone notice how uncomfortable Speaker Boehner appeared?

Mark, it would be nice if both sides could eliminate the rancor but unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon. Santorum's standing silent and saying it wasn't his job to correct a lie spoken by a Florida woman regarding President Obama deserves the distain and rancor for his inexcusable silence. Before President Obama even gave his speech, before copies had been distributed to Congress, Speaker Boehner was quoted in my hometown Tues AM paper as saying the SOTU will be "pathetic", that he later called President Obama "almost un-American." He's the Speaker of the House, and those comments were disgusting. Democrats are not going to sit back and let that kind of rancor stand without defending President Obama and calling out Boehner and his friends for what they are.

Its kind of hard for the real hard core TeaThuglicans to make their points, Rush Limbaugh isn't on the air until later.

@dirp101: True! They should be getting in a quick nap before his show, cause they will be tearing it up later!

LOL!

Hi Jody,

Rancorous discourse has been a part of American politics from the start - our beloved founding fathers were not beyond dropping grievous insults upon their fellows - and although that does not make it right there is certainly no small amount of political gamesmanship that accompanies the practice of partisan put down.

What really bugs me (and gives cause for taking frequent short breaks from the FR comments boards) are the preponderance of thoughtless, pointless, unproductive generalizations, insults, vitriol, that constitute many of the posts here. Even the entertainment value of such wears thin after a while. But, you gotta dig through the dirt to find the gems.

I realize the medium of internet bulletin boards are extremely limited in their ability to promote meaningful discussion. Words are but a partial component of effective communication. I wonder how different the words would be of many of the regularly acerbic contributors here if they were looking their adversary in the eyes.

Excellent post, Mark!

I cant wait for the govt to restructure all my mortgages, oh goodie, I really need it hurry up with that plan.

Hey Mark! You're the first person to make that statement without claiming that it's only the righties that post that way. Congrats! Or did you just forget to put that in? Most who know me would say I'm pretty moderate (or used to be). But after months on this board, I've tilted further and further to the right. Mainly as a result of these people. I pretty much ONLY watch MSNBC, which is supposed to educate me with the "truth", as opposed to the evil, brainwashing FOX NEWS. But the more I watch Paul Maddow, Larry O etc...the more I swing right. Ain't that some strange s**t?

@Buck naked,

How was your sojourn in the Democratic People's Republic of Massachusetts?

Congress was taken over(both chambers) in Jan of 2007 when Bush STILL had two years left. Unemployment was 4.6%, GDP was 3.5, and the DOW was steady at 12,600. What has happened since then...the housing crisis!! Can the Democrats spin and lie that they DID'NT cause it???

it is lovely, needs to be colder. It is messing up the skiing, seafood tonight, celtics Friday

"7.14 job1 " did anyone notice how uncomfortable Speaker Boehner appeared?"

No body wants to be caught on camera vomiting. Obamas campaign speech made me a little nauseous too.

@buck,

Yes, it has been unseasonably mild. Enjoy the meal and the game.

Yes indeed Smitty,

Obama-Biden 2012

Wow, Ed, a little bitter? I love seeing rightwingnuts with their panties in a bunch.

Obama/Biden 2012

ed Ignore you!

I thought the President sounded like he was campaigning for America, not for himself. He was putting the world on notice we are back, baby.

When he criticized Congress, he didn't say "Republicans in Congress." He never mentioned Romney or Gingrich, although all they do on the stump is disparage Obama and call him "unAmerican" and insinuate he is "Other."

It didn't sound like a campaign speech to me, because Obama wasn't boasting about himself, he was boasting about America. Big difference, to me.

Amy, so true and nicely capsulized by you.

The opposition think that they are the only ones who care about the country, whereas in truth, if they really cared, they'd be working with the President to make us even better.

Their actions show us all they have no intention of helping in any shape or form, which will, in the end defeat their objective to defeat our hardworking President

Amy, no, he never mentioned the candidates running for the Republican nomination and all that. But surely you see how he used this speech to frame the outline of his re-election campaign.

Not poking at this president in isolation. I think the State of the Union has been a piece of crap carnival act under every president since President Reagan first used invited guests as props to bring home his feel good or tearjerking points.

It's gotten so bad, leaving these politicians to their own devices, that I'd go along with a mandated template that forced reporting on the state of the national debt, money supply, public infrastructure, foreign affairs, workforce, etc. The state of the union isn't a setting for campaigning... even for the country. It's not a setting for anyone to talk agendas. It's supposed to be a report just of what is.

Paul,

In golden oldie days, the president used to just send a letter to Congress stating what the state of the union was.

A few more facts on the "State of the Union". While Washington would address both houses of Congress, starting in 1790, Jefferson stopped the practice. He thought it smacked of being "monarchical". Woodrow Wilson brought the practice back, and FDR coined the phrase "State of the Union"

The opposition response started in 1970 from the Dems, responding to Richard Nixon.

Just a few tidbits.

It's not a setting for anyone to talk agendas. It's supposed to be a report just of what is.

I beg to differ.

Article II, Section 3:

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;"

I thought the President sounded like he was campaigning for America, not for himself.

Dear Amy,

What you said is precisely what the media misses. Perfectly said and this message should be part of the president's his re-election campaign.

And FDR coined the phrase, using the constitution, the "State of the Union" speech. :)

It's not NEW. Any year of a general election the SOTU is always portrayed by the media as the kick off of the campaign when a president is running for re-election. It's been this way for as long as I can remember. Last night's SOTU outlined what was achieved the past years, where we were and where we are, what we need to achieve, goals for this year. While one may view that as a campaign speech, it is also defines the State of the Union.

Gallery guests - I think the amount of people who are announced and why they are announced have become a bit trivial, not for them but for all of us.

You got to admit that when Reagan announced the heroes of the Potomac in the gallery way back when it was pretty cool, as it was the first time it was done.

Probably showing myself as a partisan hack to some, but I liked when MSNBC's Rachel Maddow spoke about the SOTU speech as prom for political geeks. Yes it is all carnival, but it is fun to watch.

They put a lot of air time to Gabby Giffords, have no problem with that. Good to see that she is doing so well. By the way, anyone else wondering why Obama didn't mention Sen. Kirk?

All - Chuck Todd said this morning that President Obama said "America" 81 times - the only thing I would have added to his speech is "if you truly love America tear up your Gordon Norquist pledges"

Good morning Jody,

It's sad that so many in the GOP live in a "gloom and doom" world.

We saw the same doom and gloom after three years of Jimmy Carter. NIce guy, weak leader, green energy hawk when gas prices went through the roof, Iran walked all over us, Israel became the White House's enemy, the economy was in shambles, college graduates had to move in with mom and dad. Fast forward thirty years. Deja vu.

Jody, if you actually CHECK, you'll find that Daniels actually balanced the budget and cut taxes in his state. You'll find that Daniels is popular with BOTH Democrats and Republicans. You'll find that Daniels did his job without using terms like "obstructionist", and without demanding that more government commissions and panels be formed, and without demanding that those that are successful pay more than they already do.

You seem to forget that for the last three years, every time that Obama and Democrats wanted something, they put out doom and gloom messages and called everything a "crisis".

All I see this morning on this blog is the usual Obama shoe lickers.

Well, road warrior - one think I know from living the book, is that by throwing out a good Christian president for a whoremonger with more than one living spouse did absolutely nothing for the working middle class of this nation, sure hope no one is stupid enough to think it will this time. In case you are interested, I could care less about oil/gas, it is time for that business to go out of business, I'm sick and tired of subsidizing texas and the oil companies, put all that money to green energy and we won't need oil anymore, ever again. Israel is not always right and not always a good friend to us or anyone else on this planet, in case you forgot God got quite angry with Israel very often, could it be because they are greedy and insensitive to the needs and safety of others? Very likely if you read and believe inthe New Testament, do not for one minute think the Jewish people think favorably of Christians, they want us to defend them - sure they do, but I seriousley doubt they would defend us regardless who the President is. The Jewish Mafia makes the Italian Mafia look like elementary school bullies, they are vicious and dangerous, yes they hate Muslums, but do not forget, they hate Christians too. For folks who say "we gotta support Israel", my question: Who did we support before 1948? Our economy is on the upswing, sorry you hate to hear that but it is, and i sure did not expect the failed reganomics of trickle down to be repaired in 3 years, after all it look georgie jr 8 to squander a surplus, no doubt saving takes a lot longer than spending and the only way to correct this mess is to make the 1% pay 30% of what they make, no deductions, nothing returned, their return comes from being able to live here, spend the money they make on what they choose and just being rich and greedy.

Hope and change are working nicely for me and my working class family, thanks for asking.

NBO (Nobody but Obama) 2012!

I had a "wow" moment when the President mentioned that after 20 years Osama bin Laden is gone. That man terrorized us and the rest of the world for far too long. I hope his death brought some closure and peace to his direct victims. I know it did for this indirect victim.

CherylLM

Jody, if you actually CHECK, you'll find that Daniels actually balanced the budget and cut taxes in his state.

Big deal. Nearly every state in the union has to balance its budget BY LAW.

You'll find that Daniels did his job without using terms like "obstructionist", and without demanding that more government commissions and panels be formed, and without demanding that those that are successful pay more than they already do.

No, rather than blaming the bad economy on the malefactors of great wealth who are responsible for it, he demonizes labor unions, and he's out to bust them.

You'll find that Daniels is popular with BOTH Democrats and Republicans.

Funny you should say that, because there's now a "Lunch Pale Republicans" organization that's opposed to Daniels' union-busting agenda. So you're right: Daniels has improved bipartisanship, but not in the way you fantasize.

Union Baby,

Don't you just hate it that your state of Tennessee has no income tax. For a lib, that must be terrible. The bright side of the state is it is business friendly and all the Michigan plants are moving to TN. BTW, I do vote in TN and like so many, I will be voting Republican for the first time in over two decades.

Cheryl, I see Houston already pointed out the false argument you make because states must balance their budgets. What's Mitch Daniels' excuse for the massive deficit and debt he helped Bush charge to the USA's credit card? The GOP speaks of being fiscally responsible but they have not been since President Reagan determined that "deficits don't matter", tax cuts solve all problems, trickle down works except it only trickles up. Daniels was the architect of the disastrous Bush budgets, period. For that reason, anything he has to say about the economy and fiscal responsibility are empty words. The only truth Daniels spoke was "the President did not create the economic and financial crisis"; he should know because he was the architect, one of the creators of the economic and financial crisis.

RW - you do know what we call repugnant yankies who come here, don't go home, and mess up our state don't you? yep, tag, you are definately it. Actually, have not loved my home state since we were stupid enough to elect an arrogant jerk like lamar assalander for anything and now that the repugnants control it I spend very little money here - KY is a short drive away, eventhough they were stupid enough to elect mcconnell and an doctor too dumb to pass his oral boards, they do have enough sense to elect a better governor than we have - haslam is just a lazy rich kid, everybody who was raised here knows that.

Jody:

What's Mitch Daniels' excuse for the massive deficit and debt he helped Bush charge to the USA's credit card?

I almost forgot that. The only place I heard about it was on the Rachel Maddow show. You know she's got a liberal bias because she talks about facts that the corporate media types either are too lazy to find out or just don't want the public to know. Everyone knows that as Steven Colbert told George Bush at a White House correspondents dinner, "facts have a liberal bias." That's why "impartial" journalists like David Gregory don't rely on them very much.

As a former republican even I was ashamed of them and their attitude.

Anybody with half a brain would realize that his speech last night was the same old Obama. He talks the talk but can't walk the walk. His claim he reduced the deficit by 2 trillion is absurd. He has increased the national debt by approximately 5 trillion dollars. The U.S debt was approximately 9.5 trillion when he took office and now its over 14 trillion. To all of you idiots that claim its the republicans fault for the continued economic crisis here is a news flash, the democrats had super majority for Obama's first two years of office which means he could have passed basically any economic reform that he wanted. He passed what he thought would stimulate the economy and nothing has improved. Being pro Obama is like signing Jamarcus Russel to an extension when he played for the raiders.

Tom, Yes indeed.

Tom....good morning and it is here in beautiful sunny SE Fl.

Saw that skewering and that's exactly what it was, Martin is the best, love his show.

And meanwhile, as the President was presenting his State of the Union, another fabulous accomplishment by our Navy Seals. I love how the President handles his job, he's a great multi-tasker.

Martin Bashir skewered Joe Walsh yesterday

Tom & it was delicious...

For those who might have missed it;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/martin-bashir-joe-walsh-child-support_n_1229166.html?ref=media

When Martin went 'there' about his $117K in back child support I almost fell off my chair!

It was WAAAY past time for someone to do it & Martin didn't flinch!

The dead beat daddy is toast in 2012!

I look forward to Walsh being voted out. He is garbage.

@ Tom Kudos to our American military and the Navy Seals rock.

Boy, no kidding! That was quite a rescue!

Joe Walsh lacks integrity; what a blowhard he is. One of the things in the interview that caught my attention was his deflection from the question about working together in Congress to talking about his town halls and listening to people (we've seen those videos, too, with Walsh screaming at the voters) but then he said (more or less) that President Obama's ideas were not those of Joe Walsh so that's why he doesn't compromise. Guess, dead-beat dad Walsh, is like the other GOPTPers, he doesn't understand how to govern and thinks compromise is a four-letter word.

with Walsh screaming at the voters)

Now... now Jody...

His excuse is he was over-caffeinated! lmao

Uh huh - you cannot make this stuff up!

Last night the President put out a "state of the union" message that was nothing more than the same old garbage and his continued campaigning for re-election.

Spend more money we don't have, raise even more debt, have more deficits. Create more government panels, commissions, and bureaucracies. And the continued job killing message to raise taxes on the job creators. That out and out B.S. about Buffett and his secretary is because Buffett invests, which means he could LOSE his investment, while his secretary gets a wage and loses NOTHING.

Is Obama going to pass a law that says if I invest in a company and it goes bankrupt that I get the money I invest back? Well, I guess if I go "green" like the Solyndra CEO and board, then the taxpayers will take the loss and the Obama supporters will pocket a half BILLION dollars.

The usual lies about "obstructionism" as TWENTY FOUR bills lay dormant in the Senate because Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote on any House bill. Obama called for a one year extension of the payroll tax, Republicans gave him that and he attacked them because they didn't want the two month extension that the Senate passed.

And the usual class warfare filth from the "great uniter".

YAWWWWWN!!!
I Barack Obama will continue to steal from people who use less government and give it to thoise who use more or it. I don't care about morals, I need to buy votes.

CherylLM.......what planet do you inhabit? this is a typical Teabagger post. You really must live under the proverbial rock.

On the payroll tax when the party of no attached the Keystone legislation to it, the President said no and rightfully so.

Unless you are a 'job creator', which I doubt, why would you defend a proposed tax increase for them?

Gingerbread.....And what do you think is going to happen with that pipeline after the election. Obama is going to approve it to pay back the unions for their support. Are you REALLY that naive?

Obama put out that he was only "given 60 days" to make a decision. That's after THREE YEARS of review of the pipeline, and you go along with his out and out lie?

Since I work for a job creator, and that job creator has said that if taxes go up he has to lay off 4 people of the 33 left in his company, that's why I defend a tax increase for them. He's got a small business, and he's already laid of 12 people in the last three years. I guess you feel the need to punish him even MORE because he happens to make a profit and actually stays in business.

I notice you don't say a thing about the 47% of this nation that not only doesn't pay taxes, but get back MORE than they pay in. Would you be for a law that says that if you have a refund coming, that you can't get back more than you actually paid in? Probably not, because then you couldn't pocket THOUSANDS of dollars of someone else's money, could you?

And by the way, in the last election, out of 10 "partied" candidates, I voted for 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans. HARDLY a Tea Party vote. Can you provide similar numbers from the last election Gingerbread? Or are you just another left wing drone that looks for the "D" and automatically checks that box and then repeats the filth you're told to?

Kind of like how you think that it shows how "intelligent" you are by putting out the description of a foul sexual act to describe people that you don't agree with politically. How "tolerant" of you.

What poor Cheryl means to say is that she admires her President, and wishes him, as well as the country, all success.

CherylLM -

I find it hard to believe that your employer will lay off someone because of a tax increase. That makes no business sense. Businesses hire the amount of people they need to meet their demand or expand to new markets. It is a fallacy to think they hire more people if they made more money - wy are the banks cutting jobs right and left after making record profits? Businesses usually make more money AFTER hiring more people to increase their sales revenue.

NDR---You could throw a life preserver to Cheryl while she is about to drown and she would complain because it came from the U.S. Obama.

Yep, Tom. Just isn't going to matter what this President does, Cheryl et al will hate him anyway.

Thanks for the laugh!

Wow, I never read Cheryl's post and the other hard core radical right posters here on MSNBC. However, today I read some, and I think they know deep inside that President Obama is going to win re-election and they are quite upset.

Job 1---You're right! They sound pretty defensive and offensive at the same time today. I think they know it's slipping away, and all they will have left is Romney on their shoes and boy, that sure does stink!

How many times do you have to be told? The pipeline means about 500 temporary jobs - the rest are Canadian union jobs that already exist - and they are using pipe bought from India. This is not about energy independence or they would be refining the product on the Great Lakes. Why ship it to Texas? So it will be available to the worldwide market.

The pipeline does not amke sense for America. It only makes sense for the Koch brothers.

Do yourself a favor and google Keystone Pipeline. Then read some articles NOT authored by Fox News. You are swallowing the lies when you should be spitting them out.

jam sanwhich,

You really should pay attention. TransCanada, the Canadian company bidding to extend the Keystone pipeline, and owner of the pipeline, has stated publically that most of the jobs building the pipeline extension will be given to Canadians. TransCanada was quoted as saying that the tempororay American jobs would be between 500 to 1400.

I get so tired of hearing how Bush is to blame for everything...Is that the best you folks can EVER come up with??? I'm not a teabagger or a far right elitist, I'm just a middle class, hard working American who knows when smoke is being blown up her butt by a guy with a silver tongue and no experience and I'm watching the rest of you groupies fawn all over it. Do you actually HEAR yourselves??? His speech last night was a campaign speech and you guys are acting like it was the Sermon on the Mount!

Actually Marge - I think you nailed it - it was ther Sermon on the Mount and I loved it - thank you for your insight

Right on the money Marge!!!! Funny how one small paragraph can sum it all up. Keep posting. You have a lot of good, common sense points to make and there are a few (sometimes way too few) people that get it

jam samwich

"the pipe fitters union has said it takes between 13-20 thousand workers to build a pipe line this size and length."

Wait, I'm confused. Aren't the unions part of the Marxist/Socialist/Kenyan/Muslim/Koolaid drinker plot to destroy this great nation? Why are you referencing anything they say? Karl Rove is gonna beat your ass. : )~

Funny stuff isn't it!

Well, he can only propose such legislation to Congress...with the House in GNOP/TeaP. hands, and Senator Phil A. Buster from the state of Mywayorthehighway in the Senate, it looks like not much will be done because of obstructionism.

We've heard it many times from Obama, and now we need to give him a Democratic House so we can actually do it!

Obama alone blocked the Keystone pipeline. He alone signed spending bills to jack the national debt from $10 trillion when he took office to $15 trillion in three years. He alone threatened to shut down coal electric plants. He proposed to drop the sulfur content of unleaded gasoline to 10 ppm. All these are job killers. Can't blame the Congress. Also, he did get ObamaCare through Congress. He can get things done, even without the cooperation of the Republicans, when he wants to. The will is not there.

Obama alone blocked the Keystone pipeline

No less than a NASA scientist said it would be "game over" for the environment if that pipeline was built.

How many tornadoes have to pick up and destroy their houses before Republicans understand that greenhouse gases are affecting US weather patterns and we need to develop alternatives to burning oil for energy to protect ourselves?

Raod Warrior,

You really need to stop the lies. This Keystone pipeline is the biggest lie you Retardlicans are perpetuating. Most republicans say it'll create 20,000 American jobs, the speaker of the house says 100,000 American jobs. The Canadian company that would build the pipeline says those numbers are waaaaaaaaay off. More like 500-1,400 American jobs. They are, afterall, a Canadian company, and said they plan to hire Canadians to do the majority of the work. The ONLY people that would benefit are the oil industry and the Republican politicians who's campaigns they fund.

Amy,

Hmmm, what does a NASA scientist know about oil pipelines? Try looking pass tornadoes destroying houses and rising coastlines, all of which are human selfish concerns. Sorry if you have to move your oceanfront house. The four legged animals love a warmer planet.