State of the Union

TBH that was one of the best speeches I’ve heard. The rep. from Wisconsin sounds pathetic in his rebuttal.
 
JOE2010 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> This guy is winning a second term…
It will depend where the unemployment rate will be in 2012. If it’s above 9%, I don’t see him win another mandate.
 
He should win another term as long as no idiot primaries him. It’s hard for challengers to win against incumbents.
Anyways, who’s going to beat him? Hurricane Sarah?
 
BO has his swagger back after the beat down in November. He will easily get reelected as long as he doesn’t do anything stupid. He has moved to the right since November (as Clinton did halfway through his presidency) and independents will vote for him again.
 
i don’t see anyone beating him, but again he made a laundry list of popular goals that in all reality are unachievable (isn’t guantanamo still open?)
 
Was a pretty good speech. I’d like to see historically what presidents say in their SOTU addresses and see whether they actually achieved a meaningful amount of what they aimed to do.
One thing that kinda irked me was the 80% access to high speed rail. I really question the need and feasibility of HSR in the US outside of the NE corridor and possibly Cali. From my understanding, it really only makes sense in dense areas.
 
CFABLACKBELT Wrote:
——————————————————-
> From my understanding, it really only makes sense in dense areas.
yup - you won’t make the cost back of annexing the land on trips from ny to dallas/chicago/san fran.
 
In fact, some states have rejected federal funds for rail projects. They just would not have enough volume.
 
I really liked his emphasis on science and technology investments, getting rid of oil subisidies and willingness to eliminate redundancy and overlap in government via a major restructuring.
Its great he chose GE’s Jeff Immelt as his economic advisor, he is one of my favorite leaders.
 
Does anyone know where I can find an applause free version? I figure that since I can watch MLB and NFL games in 30 minutes, there must be video of the entire speech minus
the applause.
 
He is certainly still very charismatic and many of his proposals were very Republican-sounding. A couple of things though:
He proposed getting rid of oil subsidies last year too and the Democrat controlled Congress did nothing about it.
He promised to veto any bill with earmarks in it, but he has never had a problem with earmarks before. He signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses. As recently as last month, he was prepared to sign a catchall spending measure stuffed with earmarks before it collapsed in the Senate after an outcry from conservatives over the bill’s $8 billion-plus in home-state pet projects.
I’m all for a re-organization of the federal goverment though if it makes it more efficient. All for holding bad teachers accountable as well.
 
higgmond Wrote:
——————————————————-
like i said - a lot of nice rhetoric, too bad none of it will be seen. green jobs and technology promotion were on his original campaign agenda.
 
If these politicians are really serious about deficits, why don’t they tackle the two biggest elephants in the room first: defense and entitlements? But that would require real guts.
Everything else is just theatrics.
 
marcus phoenix Wrote:
——————————————————-
> If these politicians are really serious about
> deficits, why don’t they tackle the two biggest
> elephants in the room first: defense and
> entitlements? But that would require real guts.
>
> Everything else is just theatrics.
I agree. The US spends nearly $300 billion more on defense per year than China and the EU combined. Time to let them start picking up their fair share of the tab for patrolling the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top