Political Discussion

[tbon]

So....HRx

u were FOR Obama...tell us what u think about what he has done so far as our President?

[DeadManCrawling]

Change I Believed In . . . Gone

Yes, I voted for the man.

However, the State of the Union address has me wondering if it was the right choice. Well, of COURSE it was the right choice. Between "change I believed in" and more years of the same old same old, I didn't have much choice I guess.

The positives from President Obama's speech:

A possible way out for folks who borrow to go to college. 20 years, and forgiven, if you commit 10% to payback in that period. It drops to 10 years if you serve in government. Finally, a light for those with student loans.

We recently had a discussion on these boards about the value of college--and its debts--versus just getting a low paying job that had advancement possibilities without the nondischargeable debts of education.

I see merit in this plan, as suggested by our president.

He waffled on banks, though. On one hand, he claimed to HATE the idea of the bailouts, but seemed to want to prop them up more as needed, if needed. I sensed an underlying confusion that will be hard to conquer. So, he is like the rest of us, I guess. He knows there is a problem, but has no real answers.

The most chilling moment, though, was early on.

He invoked incredibly desperate and hopeless events from the past, as a comparison to where we are now.

Words like:

Omaha Beach

Civil War

Bull Run

etc.

And then said, "We conquered those, and we will conquer this".

How?

When?

Not many words were said about how we would beat back this economic crisis. Lots of grandiose statements about new energy, spending money, how we need to keep up with China and so on. But no real plans or orders. He had grand statements which were rather vague and called on the American people to "do our duty" and called on congress to end the "partisan battles". We all know that is likely to happen.

I DID like the part where he called out the Supreme Court on their recent ruling about campaign funding by corporations. This I liked a LOT. But, was that just subterfuge so I would not think about the other, more important things?

So, where DO we stand? Was this speech one more stop on the campaign trail?

What are your thoughts?

Please share them, as I have no idea what to make of this.

[nerves]

I personally was about to gag at the whole "build me up" speech. As usual, the politicians have no clue what the majority of every day Americans deal with or how they live. The part about the education credits to parents didn't set well with me. When are they going to get it - the money needs to go to the students - not their parents or in a buget for colleges. I have seen many of my friends that are middle class pay for their education without the help of their parents and got screwed with pell grants because of their parents income.

Making funds available for the small businesses - not going to work. Banks are concerned with their bottom line - those funds won't be allocated to the small business person because they are much more risky. The funds may buy them time but if Americans aren't spending - their profit line isn't going to improve.

Saving and creating jobs for teachers - obviously they haven't seen the headlines in the Iowa newspapers recently. Teachers are getting pink slips daily due to budget cuts.

I could go on and on on my opinion of the time I wasted watching the trash on TV tonight. At least with the real trash TV you can get a laugh from time to time.

This is just my opinion.....

[JRScott]

I saw the state of the Union as basically more of the same.

I mean there was no sincerity in it. You can't do all that and claim your going to freeze spending when in truth it would increase spending nearly twice what it is now. It is an unsustainable path.

I did not vote for Obama, I voted for Bob Barr.

Although perhaps unpopular the Supreme Court's ruling was correct I believe. Keep in mind the billions of free advertising political candidates get from media corporations, while others were excluded. I don't believe you'll honestly see much change because of the ruling. You'll see a few corporations give more money to the GOP but at the same time more Unions will give more money to the Democrats. It'll even itself out in the end. I personally would like to see media outlets forced to give equal time to all candidates not just R and D.

If you don't like the Supreme Court ruling you could always attempt to amend the Constitution.

[DeadManCrawling]

Oh, and seeing Tim Geithner smiling away at different parts of the speech did VERY little to instill confidence in me. Just cannot look at that mans face and see anything but our nations undoing.

[AngelinaCatHub]

"Words, only words" (quote Barrack Housien Obama)

A possible way out for folks who borrow to go to college. 20 years, and forgiven, if you commit 10% to payback in that period. It drops to 10 years if you serve in government. Finally, a light for those with student loans.

OK, I see this as "transparency"!!!!! 20 years for us peon's, but if you join the elite Govmint workers, then 10%. BUT!! Remember we are all treated equal according to that now obsolete little item called the Constitution.

About disting your Supreme Court, very out of line. It is the Third part of checks and balance and the last I heard, the Dems put more jerks into that then the Reps. So goes loyalty and law.

Words, only words. 'Bammy has done nothing except to pay back, and bribe for his "legacy" and future votes.

Gee, I surely hope you all don't think I'm opinionated. Gosh, I hope not. 'Hub

[Skipper]

Congress sux.

Special interests', sux.

'nuff said.

Skipper

[OHBOY]

I too found it outrageous for our 'fearless leader' to 'scold' the Supreme Court as though they were all little school children sitting in front of him that needed lecturing.

Quite interesting that apparently he is doing quite a 'flip/flap' by pushing nuclear power.

No mentioning that the latest proposed 'Clean Energy Bill' by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman would allow UNLIMITED taxpayer loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear reactors and "clean coal" projects.
A nine-member unelected board of directors would determine which projects CEDA would fund--with no Congressional or public oversight. Unlike some other clean energy bank proposals, there would be no limit on how much money any single technology could receive, and no requirement that those technologies that offer the fastest, most cost-effective carbon reductions get funded first.
(Interesting, and somewhat similar to Florida's Progress Energy that adds a monthly cost to consumer electric bills to fund the building of another proposed nuclear plant (one of the two to be going up in Levy County). Don't know of another business that can mandate customers to fund the building of a project...even prior to construction.)

I know I may sound as though I am getting carried away here...but, also no mentioning as to what to do with the little 'dirty secret' of the nuclear industry, namely...the deadly spent fuel rods... with a halflife of 'only' a few hundred thousand years...and no safe permanent place to store the waste...just think recordkeeping...how to relate to future human beings the dangers of the 'stuff' ....there is not a single language that lasted that long.....hell, we don't even have a record of humans being around that long...

Ok, the 'Man' obviously has all of the answers for all of us...knows what's good for us...I say: Watch out !

Also wonder if he will start with a good example by putting a 'freeze'/cut on his wifes many assistants......see below, what is titled: 'Sacrifices of the First Lady'

About Michelle :
Written by Dr. Paul L. Williams

"In my own life in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "...
Michelle Obama

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession.

Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.

Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower: One-- paid for personally out of President's salary.

Jackie Kennedy: One

Roseline Carter: One

Barbara Bush: One

Hilary Clinton: Three

Laura Bush: One

Michele Obama: Twenty-two

How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms. Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU,
John Q. Public

Michele Obama's personal staff:

One.. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)

Two.. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and
Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)

Three.. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)

Four.. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)

Five.. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

Six.. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

Seven.. $84,000 - Lilyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)

Eight.. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)

Nine. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Project for the First Lady)

Ten.. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

Eleven.. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B.(Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Twelve.. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)

Thirteen.. $60,000 Fitz, Alan O.(Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)

Fourteen... $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)

Fifteen... $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
Sixteen.. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)

Seventeen.. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)

Eighteen.. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)

Nineteen.. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

Twenty.. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)

Twenty-One.. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

Twenty-Two.. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

[WhatMoney]

Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower: One-- paid for personally out of President's salary.

Jackie Kennedy: One Wrong - More like 40
Roseline Carter: One Wrong - Over 20
Barbara Bush: One Wrong - Over 20
Hilary Clinton: Three Wrong - Try 35
Laura Bush: One Wrong - Try 26
Michele Obama: Twenty-two - yup - typical staff size for the First Lady since the 1960's

How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms. Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU,
John Q. Public

All you can do is quote a chain letter filled with known lies and distortions? Are you conservatives so desperate that you can't even tell the truth a little bit of the time? Why do you hate Michelle Obama so much you need to fill up this forum with lies? The comparison has been debunked many times. Why do still believe such $hit?

Rosen Bush had a LARGER personal staff than Michelle and paid them more. So did Jacqueline Kennedy. So did Hillary, and Betty Ford. Your numbers comparing to other First Lady's are simply a pack of lies. Pretty much like most of the comments in yet another Obama bashing thread on the BK forum. Yawn... how predictable.

On 1 July 2009, the White House released its Annual Report to Congress on White House Office Staff, a report listing the names, position titles, and salaries of White House employees. Several days later, columnist Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times put together a blog post in which she used the White House report to identify 22 staffers working in the Office of First Lady. (Sixteen of the listed names were staffers who had the words "First Lady" in their position titles, five were staffers with the words "Social Office" or "Social Secretary" in their titles, and one was listed as a "Staff Assistant.") Lynn Sweet's list was posted to the Last Crusade web site (and the Canada Free Press web site) with the introductory paragraphs (reproduced above) claiming that First Lady Michelle Obama had hired "an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim," and variants of that version have circulated via e-mail with the subject line "First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants." Note Canada Free Press and Last Crusade are extremist nutjob right-wing websites, that specialize in spreading disinformation.

So far as the original White House report is accurate, it's fair to say that First Lady Michelle Obama has about 22 staffers working for her, directly or indirectly. (Some other accounts put that figure at 24.) However, it's grossly inaccurate to claim that the current First Lady has hired "an unprecedented number of staffers," or to assert (as stated in the anonymously tacked-on final paragraph) that First Lady Laura Bush had but a single staffer working for her.

The 2008 White House Office Staff List, issued during the final year of President George W. Bush's tenure in office, includes sixteen different staffers with the words "First Lady" in their position titles — exactly the same number as that listed for Michelle Obama in 2009. If all staffers listed with "Social Secretary" in their titles are included as part of the First Lady's retinue (as was done with the Michelle Obama example cited above), then Mrs. Bush had at least 18 people working for her in 2008 (not including any of the various personnel listed only as "Staff Assistants," some of whom may also have worked for her directly or indirectly).

In fact, according to Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former Chief of Staff, Mrs. Bush had between 24 and 26 staffers working for her by the end of her husband's second term in office. It's therefore fair to say that the size of Michelle Obama's staff is not "unprecedented," but rather on a par with her immediate predecessor's.

Moreover, according to the Associated Press, several other First Ladies had larger numbers of personnel working for them than Michelle Obama does:
A look at some first ladies and their staff sizes:

Nancy Reagan moved her office back into the center of the second floor of the Mansion, though her staff remained in the East Wing; she benefited from the 1978 statute (PL 95-570) which authorizes "assistance and services . . . to be provided to the spouse of the President in connection with assistance provided by such spouse to the President in the discharge of the President’s duties and responsibilities."

Hillary Clinton broke tradition even further: the President gave her an office on the second floor of the West Wing itself; her staff of twenty (plus another fifteen interns and volunteers) was divided between a suite in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the traditional locus of the East Wing.

Laura Bush: Between 24 and 26 by end of President George W. Bush's term in 2009, according to Anita McBride, Mrs. Bush's chief of staff.
"The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.4 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.6 million, not including the additional 8 staffers Laura Bush had in 2008."

Lady Bird Johnson, whose signature issue was beautifying roadways, had a staff of 30, said Stacy A. Cordery, a history professor at Montmouth College in Illinois who studies first ladies.

Betty Ford had almost the same number.

Jacqueline Kennedy, who made renovating the White House her cause, had about 40 people on staff, Cordery said.
Last updated: 6 October 2009

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp

As the song goes: 'TELL THE TRUTH' - To bad the conservatives don't know how.

[WhatMoney]

Quite interesting that apparently he is doing quite a 'flip/flap' by pushing nuclear power.

Oh really? Here is what Obama said in October 2009 about nuclear power. Now tell me where is the "flip/flap" (sic)?

President Obama Would Like To See Increased Use Of Nuclear Power
Obama also spoke about the need to rely more heavily on nuclear energy as the United States looks for ways to reduce greenhouse gases

According to a report by Reuters, President Barack Obama contends that he is now in favor of finding environmentally safe ways to tap U.S. oil and natural gas reserves and would like to see increased use of nuclear-generated electricity.

"What I think we need to do is increase our domestic energy production," Obama declared at a public meeting in New Orleans. "I'm in favor of finding environmentally sound ways to tap our oil and our natural gas."

Obama also spoke about the need to rely more heavily on nuclear energy as the United States looks for ways to lower greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

"There's no reason why technologically we can't employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way. Japan does it and France does it and it doesn't have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way," he said.

Obama said it is essential to develop new sources of clean energy and increase energy efficiency.

Last year, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said that he favored the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming.

Published Oct 19 2009, 08:55 AM by steveheiser

http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/nucle...wer-10161.aspx

Next?...

[WhatMoney]

I personally was about to gag at the whole "build me up" speech. As usual, the politicians have no clue what the majority of every day Americans deal with or how they live.
Guess you missed the part where Obama mentioned how much he DOES know what the average working american is going through. Oh I get it, you just don't believe him.

The part about the education credits to parents didn't set well with me. When are they going to get it - the money needs to go to the students - not their parents or in a buget for colleges.
If a student is working it is his money to spend. If the parent is paying for the education the parent should control the money. Makes no sense to put $10,000 in some 18 yr old's account and hope he spends it all on education.
Would be even better if the money for tuition and books was paid directly to the college. Students under 21 not working full-time can still be claimed by their parents for tax purposes - that's why he is saying the parents should control the education credits.

I have seen many of my friends that are middle class pay for their education without the help of their parents and got screwed with pell grants because of their parents income.
It's around $10,000/yr for a public university - your friends paid this from thier own income? Great - so did I - but college education costs were much much lower back then.

Making funds available for the small businesses - not going to work. Banks are concerned with their bottom line - those funds won't be allocated to the small business person because they are much more risky. The funds may buy them time but if Americans aren't spending - their profit line isn't going to improve.
The money isn't coming from the banks. That's the problem - banks are not loaning to small business today because of the risk. Obama wants to take the money returned by the banks from their bailout and give it directly to small businesses. Otherwise small business will continue to shrink and more jobs will be lost. I don't understand your objection to supporting loans to small business.

Saving and creating jobs for teachers - obviously they haven't seen the headlines in the Iowa newspapers recently. Teachers are getting pink slips daily due to budget cuts.
Right - because the federal government has not been making up for the state budget cuts. I fail to see your point.

I could go on and on on my opinion of the time I wasted watching the trash on TV tonight. At least with the real trash TV you can get a laugh from time to time.

I thought is was a good speech overall - the most disgusting thing was to see the Republican side sit on their hands when Obama asked for their cooperation. Obviously the Repubs have no intention of helping the country recover. They don't give a damn about you or me. I say get rid of all the Republicans obstructionists so Obama can actually accomplish something.

[contemplate]

no jobs for teachers in sight!

As a teacher, I was alarmed at the saving education jobs claim. I know dozens of workaholic awesome teachers who have lost jobs due to budget cuts. I also know of many college grads who cannot find a job in education! I have friends across the country who are experiencing budget cuts & teachers are losing their jobs. I cannot believe he had the nerve to say, that he saved education jobs! (I also voted for him- and for the record like the man but wth- that statement is just NOT true.) People do not become teachers to get rich or for selfish gain, but to make a difference in children's lives. For years, I heard the line "teacher shortage." Well they left out a key word. The accurate term is "teacher job shortage." I also raised an eyebrow to the statement about greater emphasis on Math & Science & more accountability for teachers (because there is not enought emphasis on tests yet lol ) All I could think was- put your money where your mouth is. My tiny district alone has to make 700,000 dollars in budget cuts this year. Argh!

[WhatMoney]

I cannot believe he had the nerve to say, that he saved education jobs!

Well what are your State statistics as to where the stimulus money was spent last year? I can't speak for Iowa or your midwestern state - maybe you were left out - BUT Obama was telling the truth when he said his stimulus saved and created teacher jobs. I know a few teachers who kept their jobs because of the 2009 stimulus money, and a few schools who hired new teachers to add to the staff.

There is still a net loss of teachers overall in the country because of State budget cuts, but without the federal stimulus money it would have been worse. Also some school districts value public education and properly fund their schools. Oregon voters just passed a tax INCREASE for those making over $250K/yr and a minimum tax for corporations that were paying nothing before. Much of these new state tax dollars are going toward education.

Does your state keep you informed how they spent the stimulus dollars? Did they allocate 70% toward education like Oregon did? Sorry if your state voters are against education funding. Must be too many Republicans.

Stimulus saved, created 8,400 Oregon jobs, mostly for teachers

Oregon has just reported the effects of federal stimulus money awarded to state government agencies during the final quarter of 2009:

It saved or created nearly 8,400 jobs -- 70 percent of them for teachers, college professors and other education workers.

Federal officials require states to report in great detail what happened to the mammoth stimulus package as it trickled down to state highway departments, community colleges, unemployment offices and schools. The federal government also is closely tracking what happened to other stimulus dollars, including those awarded to private businesses and local governments.

Oregon's latest online report allows you to track by geographic location how stimulus money for state agencies was spent and where jobs were retained or created.

By Betsy Hammond, The Oregonian
January 13, 2010, 1:16PM

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2010/01/stimulous_saved_created_8400_o.html

[bkpain]

For the most part it was just same ol' BS on a different day, but I will add my 2 cents. Whether out not I agree with the Supreme Court, the way Obama called it out was childish and to legislate around a ruling undermines the basis of our Supreme Court and Constitution. Little Timmy should be taken out back and never heard nor seen from again but that's not gonna happen, he's Obama's little pet. It's all peachy to do a "freeze" but when you raises the budget 35% (EPA) in one year and then freeze its like an alcoholic buying a few kegs and gallons of whiskey but vows not to buy anymore this month.

I did not vote for them man but didn't want to vote for the other guy either, unfortunately the past 3 elections it hasn't been the best candidate but the lessor of 2 evils.

[frogger]

It's all b.s., doesn't matter if they have a R or D in front of them. The entire lot of them are a bunch of self-serving, pathological liars, serving the better good of their own ego and wallets.

Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, whatever. Same thing, different masks...