The President's Speech. Your thoughts.

**1KielsonDrive** · April-14-11, 01:07 PM

What do you think of the president's speech? And as a separate issue, do you seriously believe he'll follow through on his stated goals?

**firstandten** · April-14-11, 06:04 PM

Obama did what he normally does on policy issues that will need congressional approval. He provided a framework of what he wants done. He's usually vague on how to get there, because he understands that if Congress feels like there being dictated too the budget that he wants to see will fail. He has learned that historically bi-partisan agreements don't happen if the executive branch is being seen as controlling the debate. However unlike the health care debate I think he came out earlier with his framework and drew a line in the sand on a couple of issues such as the Bush tax cuts and parts of the Ryan tax plan which he didn't do with health care.

Another reason he would be somewhat vague is political in nature. He needs the wiggle room. The reality is sometimes the votes just aren't there for a particular item on your agenda. You can either take a hard line and risk having your whole agreement go down in flames or getting something out of the deal with a compromise.

You might ask, why does he need bi-partisan agreement just ram it thru. Well other than the fact that now he can't, a bi-partisan agreement means that everyone has skin in the game which makes the bill less likely that it will get nit-picked to death every time a new congress takes office.

On the areas in which he drew a line in the sand he put the Repubs in a box with the American public if they fight him too hard on it.

All in all I thought it was a good strategic speech. Its seems like he learned some lessons from the health care debate.

**Ray1936** · April-14-11, 10:17 PM

It did for me what it did for Joe Biden.

**1KielsonDrive** · April-15-11, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

It did for me what it did for Joe Biden.

What did it do for Joe Biden? Ummmmm....

**WKL** · April-15-11, 08:05 AM

Joe got caught taking a power nap/

**Mikeg** · April-15-11, 10:31 AM

Given Obama's record for "following through" on what he's said he was going to do on the big issues of the day, why should anyone believe or even care about anything he says anymore?

During his speech, he made the following statement:

"politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse."

Five minutes later, this same politician said,

"Secretary Bob Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again."

------------------

"I just miss - I miss being anonymous....." President Barack Obama, April 8, 2011.

**firstandten** · April-15-11, 12:56 PM

Mikeg

Your apples and oranges analogies are a sight to behold !

**Gistok** · April-15-11, 04:59 PM

LOL... every time I read one of his "critical" presidential quotes I want to go back to this link for a reality check and put things back into perspective....
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/b...bushquotes.htm

**oladub** · April-16-11, 12:07 AM

I just read the president's speech. Good grief, the guy sure is audacious. I did agree with removing some tax credits for the rich but Obama fall far short of acknowledging that there has to be a demand for US workers and his policies, like those of Republicans before him, fail to recognize that. He recent passage of the extended S. Korean free trade bill, support for Mexican truckers, and Obama's new spending initiative in Libya are just some of the most recent examples of Obama crushing the middle class with spending and job competition. We are even being forced to retrofit Mexican trucks so they can operate safely on US highways at US taxpayer expense.

$4T over 12 years is a joke when he is running $1.5T annual deficits. Last month, inflation was up to 6% because of rising gas and food prices. Maybe $4T won't be such a big deal when bread is $5 a loaf. He didn't even address the strong possibility that all the printing press money will result in higher interest rates and additional trillion$ in government interest expenses. He certainly didn't take responsibility for that if it happens. Ok, he can share the responsibility with Bush.

**Mikeg** · April-17-11, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by firstandten

Mikeg

Your apples and oranges analogies are a sight to behold !

The real apples and oranges are the two different 2012 Budget proposals Obama has announced within the last 60 days.

Did anybody seriously believe he'd follow through with his 2012 budget goals that were announced on Feb 14th, the ones that were going to supposedly tackle the deficit even while ignoring the recommendations of his own blue-ribbon deficit-reduction commission?

Does anybody seriously believe that he will follow through on his second stab at long-term deficit reduction, the one that he announced in his speech earlier this week? That's the speech where one minute he's above the fray, pretending he's not one of those politicians who panders to the voters by focusing on the elimination of wasteful spending and the next minute bragging on how his SecDef has found $400 million of wasteful spending and how he's going to do it again in 2012.

**Zacha341** · April-17-11, 08:31 AM

He's in over his head on the fiscal economic status. Blame it on Bush, not that the repubs have not had their equal hand it what is coming....

Originally Posted by oladub

....$4T over 12 years is a joke when he is running $1.5T annual deficits. Last month, inflation was up to 6% because of rising gas and food prices. Maybe $4T won't be such a big deal when bread is $5 a loaf. He didn't even address the strong possibility that all the printing press money will result in higher interest rates and additional trillion$ in government interest expenses. He certainly didn't take responsibility for that if it happens. Ok, he can share the responsibility with Bush.

**Zacha341** · April-17-11, 08:32 AM

Precisely. Well stated.....

Originally Posted by Mikeg

The real apples and oranges are the two different 2012 Budget proposals Obama has announced within the last 60 days.

Did anybody seriously believe he'd follow through with his 2012 budget goals that were announced on Feb 14th, the ones that were going to supposedly tackle the deficit even while ignoring the recommendations of his own blue-ribbon deficit-reduction commission?

Does anybody seriously believe that he will follow through on his second stab at long-term deficit reduction, the one that he announced in his speech earlier this week? That's the speech where one minute he's above the fray, pretending he's not one of those politicians who panders to the voters by focusing on the elimination of wasteful spending and the next minute bragging on how his SecDef has found $400 million of wasteful spending and how he's going to do it again in 2012.

**firstandten** · April-17-11, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

The real apples and oranges are the two different 2012 Budget proposals Obama has announced within the last 60 days.

Did anybody seriously believe he'd follow through with his 2012 budget goals that were announced on Feb 14th, the ones that were going to supposedly tackle the deficit even while ignoring the recommendations of his own blue-ribbon deficit-reduction commission?

Does anybody seriously believe that he will follow through on his second stab at long-term deficit reduction, the one that he announced in his speech earlier this week? That's the speech where one minute he's above the fray, pretending he's not one of those politicians who panders to the voters by focusing on the elimination of wasteful spending and the next minute bragging on how his SecDef has found $400 million of wasteful spending and how he's going to do it again in 2012.

Probably the reasons Obama ignored the deficit commission is one there are a lot of deficit hawks on the commission, just because its bi-partisan it doesn't mean he choose the members.
Also while not exactly thinking like Robert Reich his thoughts are probably more in line with his.

Republicans are telling Americans a Big Lie, and Obama and the Democrats are letting them. The Big Lie is our economic problems are due to a government that’s too large, and therefore the solution is to shrink it.
"The truth is our economic problems stem from the biggest concentration of income and wealth at the top since 1928, combined with stagnant incomes for most of the rest of us. The result: Americans no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going at full capacity. Since the debt bubble burst, most Americans have had to reduce their spending; they need to repay their debts, can’t borrow as before, and must save for retirement.
"The short-term solution is for government to counteract this shortfall by spending more, not less. The long-term solution is to spread the benefits of economic growth more widely [[for example, through a more progressive income tax, a larger EITC, an exemption on the first $20K of income from payroll taxes and application of payroll taxes to incomes over $250K, stronger unions, and more and better investments in education and infrastructure.)
"But instead of telling the truth, Obama has legitimized the Big Lie by freezing non-defense discretionary spending, freezing federal pay, touting his deficit commission co-chairs’ recommended $3 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase, and agreeing to extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy"

Jobs are the key to the economic recovery and his re-election. Obama does not believe that
Jobs creation = spending cuts

He understands some spending cuts are necessary but to slash so much that it stalls the recovery will not create jobs. The failed suppy-side concepts should have taught us that.

**Detroitej72** · April-17-11, 05:28 PM

St. Ronald of Reagan tought us high deficits mean nothing to the economic recovery.

**Mikeg** · April-17-11, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

St. Ronald of Reagan tought us high deficits mean nothing to the economic recovery.

"High" is a relative term that loses it's usefulness when used to compare and rationalize the orders of magnitude in increased deficit spending under the Obama administration, which has yet to produce an economic recovery.

As a percent of GDP, Obama's estimated 2012 budget deficit is twice as high compared to the highest annual budget deficit during the Reagan administration. [source]

In Obama's first 19 months in office, the amount of federal debt held by the public increased by $2.526 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents up to and including Reagan. [source]

**Zacha341** · April-17-11, 08:16 PM

And that thinking continues right up thru the current administration with zeal!

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

St. Ronald of Reagan tought us high deficits mean nothing to the economic recovery.

**Zacha341** · April-17-11, 08:17 PM

Oh, say it isn't so... um, er but it's all Bushes fault...

Originally Posted by Mikeg

...As a percent of GDP, Obama's estimated 2012 budget deficit is twice as high compared to the highest annual budget deficit during the Reagan administration. [source]

In Obama's first 19 months in office, the amount of federal debt held by the public increased by $2.526 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents up to and including Reagan. [source]

**firstandten** · April-18-11, 02:03 AM

some of you are being disingenuous about the amount of federal debt. You forgot why Obama had to increase the debt short-term. Economist both liberal and conservative will tell you to stimulate the economy. You forget just how close we were to a total financial meltdown.

I can just hear you now if Obama took your advice and made all the spending cuts you hammer him about.

That Obama he let us go into a depression because he cut everything. He balanced the budget but everybody is out of work. Yeah ! doesn't he know you have to stimulate the economy.

BTW the numbers are showing there is an economic recovery as jobless as it might be.

The Repubs attempts to box the President into a no-win situation is not going to work, the problem is are people smart enough to see it.

**oladub** · April-18-11, 10:16 AM

firstandten: some of you are being disingenuous about the amount of federal debt. You forgot why Obama had to increase the debt short-term. Economist both liberal and conservative will tell you to stimulate the economy. You forget just how close we were to a total financial meltdown.

You assume, incorrectly, that Obama had to increase the debt 'short term'. How do you define 'short term'? How many years will it take to pay off the trillion$ Obama has spent to perfect an 8.7% unemployment rate? His speech about reducing $4T over 12 years was about reducing $4T of his projected $11T debt increase over those same years. it is actually a proposal to increase debt $7T over 12 years. [[$11T-$4T=$7T)

I can just hear you now if Obama took your advice and made all the spending cuts you hammer him about.

That Obama he let us go into a depression because he cut everything. He balanced the budget but everybody is out of work. Yeah ! doesn't he know you have to stimulate the economy.

BTW the numbers are showing there is an economic recovery as jobless as it might be.

The Repubs attempts to box the President into a no-win situation is not going to work, the problem is are people smart enough to see it.

Great, a jobless 'recovery'. Obama must deserve another four years. President Harding, by contrast did relatively nothing to stem the depression of 1921 in which unemployment shut up to 11.7%. Banks were allowed to go bankrupt. The result was a sharp but brief depression. Two years later, after much of the crud was flushed out of the economic system by bankruptcies, unemployment was back under 3%. It is quite possible that unemployment would have shot up over 11% if Obama hadn't acted but by not allowing bad debt to be liquidated, we remain in a major recession. Obama has simply kicked the economic can down the road by adding an economic millstone of debt to our accounts. China, by contrast, has $3T of surplus. Guess which country will be more nimble in international competition and innovation? Standard & Poor today announced that it is considering lowering the US debt rating because of Obama's uncontrollable spending. This will cost us billions in increases borrowing rates and further stymy our economy. Bush and Obama spending have created inflation and devalued the dollar which we notice every time we grocery shop or go to the gas pump.

**Danny** · April-18-11, 10:22 AM

President Obama's speech was wonder and precise! He will show those NEO-CONS that he thumps at them! The will NEVER take control of U.S. Congress and show their favoritism for corporations.

**Mikeg** · April-18-11, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Danny

President Obama's speech was wonder and precise! He will show those NEO-CONS that he thumps at them! The will NEVER take control of U.S. Congress and show their favoritism for corporations.

I prefer Charles Krauthammer's description of President Obama's alleged "wonder and precise!" speech:

The president’s speech was a prose poem to higher taxes — with every allusion to spending cuts guarded by a phalanx of impenetrable caveats.

For more on those "impenetrable caveats", read here, particularly the analysis of the President's proposal for a new budget process trigger mechanism [[in effect, a tax increase trigger on those who itemize deductions), which combined with his proposed incremental changes to Medicare, amounts to "a trigger backed up by a trigger."

Meanwhile, as President Obama attempts to sell Version 2.0 of his 2012 Budget Proposal, this just in:

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service cut the nation’s long- term credit outlook to negative.

When and if the USA loses its AAA rating on its debt [[S&P is saying there is at least a one-in-three likelihood that they will have to lower their long-term rating on US debt within two years), our borrowing costs will significantly increase, further enlarging the deficit and the hole we need to crawl out of.

UPDATE

The Obama administration's response naturally is to downplay the S&P announcement as premature and political, since rival ratings agency Moody's has not changed their outlook.

Both S&P and particularly Moody's have been known to be wrong in the past, however they were both wrong in the same direction.

**rb336** · April-18-11, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

How many years will it take to pay off the trillion$ Obama has spent to perfect an 8.7% unemployment rate?

an absolute falsehood on multiple levels

His speech about reducing $4T over 12 years was about reducing $4T of his projected $11T debt increase over those same years. it is actually a proposal to increase debt $7T over 12 years. [[$11T-$4T=$7T)

debt or deficit?

Great, a jobless 'recovery'.

ahh, still blaming him for the fact that the nastiest recession since 1929 was a reult of 8 years of right-wing policies, followed by right-wing blocking of the best proposals he had, all to ensure that they would get more votes due to the lack of "recovery" [[which most economists are saying is on track with their projections from early obama days anyway).

Obama must deserve another four years. President Harding, by contrast did relatively nothing to stem the depression of 1921 in which unemployment shut up to 11.7%. Banks were allowed to go bankrupt. The result was a sharp but brief depression. Two years later, after much of the crud was flushed out of the economic system by bankruptcies, unemployment was back under 3%. It is quite possible that unemployment would have shot up over 11% if Obama hadn't acted but by not allowing bad debt to be liquidated, we remain in a major recession.
[/quote]

who says we are still in a recession? economic growth has remained steady.

also, how long did that "harding recovery" last until the end result was the Great Depression?

Obama has simply kicked the economic can down the road by adding an economic millstone of debt to our accounts. China, by contrast, has $3T of surplus. Guess which country will be more nimble in international competition and innovation? .

All due to trade policies fostered under conservative republican and democratic leadership, not due to government spending. Do you have any idea how much the Chinese have spent on domestic development during those years?

**oladub** · April-18-11, 03:02 PM

rb:an absolute falsehood on multiple levels

Questions aren't 'falsehoods'. The unemployment rate is about 8.7%. firstandten asked "You forgot why Obama had to increase the debt short-term." I am enquiring what is meant by 'short term" and how long it will take to pay it off and your answer is [[?).

debt or deficit?

debt

ahh, still blaming him for the fact that the nastiest recession since 1929 was a reult of 8 years of right-wing policies, followed by right-wing blocking of the best proposals he had, all to ensure that they would get more votes due to the lack of "recovery" [[which most economists are saying is on track with their projections from early obama days anyway).

No, Obama had a Democratic House and Senate for two years, so I can't blame Republicans for the way Democrats voted. Besides, Obama supported Bush's Wall Street bailout and war and went on to perpetuate both as President. In many ways those two administrations are seamless.

who says we are still in a recession? economic growth has remained steady.
also, how long did that "harding recovery" last until the end result was the Great Depression?

I disagree. I think we are still in a recession based on unemployment rates, foreclosures, and government overspending meant to give the illusion that the recession has ended.
The depression of 1921 lasted one year. Unemployment was down to 2-3% two years later although the bankers were allowed to go bankrupt instead of increasing their bonuses.

All due to trade policies fostered under conservative republican and democratic leadership, not due to government spending. Do you have any idea how much the Chinese have spent on domestic development during those years?

I agree that both Democratic and rRepublican leadership are both responsible. Yes, the Chinese leadership has invested in infrastructure with the money China earned from it's generally positive balance of trade; a balance of trade partially created by our politicians who sold us out with trade deals which disadvantage US workers.

**old guy** · April-18-11, 03:24 PM

The depression of 1921 was a cakewalk though. Troops returning from WWI, re-tooling in manufacturing and bam, we were back in business.

On another note, I don't think the recession is over by a long shot. I hope I'm wrong.

**rb336** · April-18-11, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Questions aren't 'falsehoods'. The unemployment rate is about 8.7%. firstandten asked "You forgot why Obama had to increase the debt short-term." I am enquiring what is meant by 'short term" and how long it will take to pay it off and your answer is [[?).

but that is NOT what you stated - your sentence was an accusation and claim [[trillions, for example) regardless of whether you put a "?" at the end of it. Old base-rate type of forensic fallacy. Nice try though.