State of the Union 2014

[Ndaccountant]

Wanted to see how many here are planning on watching since it has been all over the news recently.

Personally, this is how I feel.

I will not be watching. Instead, I am going to be catching up on Orphan Black (great show, if you have not seen it).

It is pretty clear to me that this SOTU speech will be nothing more than political masturbation. You have the D's that are going to try to introduce an issue they think they can run on in 2014 that will bring people out to vote and that will distract people from the whole health care thing. Nothing better than inequality. On the other side, you will have the R's that will be against most of the things discussed tonight and will still march on to remind people (as if it is needed) that they believe health care should be repealed.

All the meantime you will have a Congress that will not act in a bi-partisan fashion, so the President will revert to EO's to pass some parts of his agenda, which will only further the divide.

So, instead of allowing emotions to creep in, I am going to sip on some bourbon and watch Orphan Black with my wife, which will be 100X better than the SOTU.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Nope. I assume it'll jumpstart the minimum wage debate though. It's an issue where I think both sides are right, thus a clusterfuck for conversation.

I'll be watching The West Wing instead, I'm on the season finale of season five. It's not as bad post-Sorkin as I would have thought.

 

[GoIrish41]

Nope. I assume it'll jumpstart the minimum wage debate though. It's an issue where I think both sides are right, thus a clusterfuck for conversation.

I'll be watching The West Wing instead, I'm on the season finale of season five. It's not as bad post-Sorkin as I would have thought.

That was a really great show.

 

[BobD]

I will watch it because I always have and I wish all Americans would.

 

[T Town Tommy]

He has a pen and a phone. I have a remote. I will be watching something else. NDAccountant is dead on in his post. Nothing but political postering ahead of the mid terms.

 

[BobD]

I find it funny that you started a thread to ask a question about something you say you have no interest in watching.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Nope. I assume it'll jumpstart the minimum wage debate though. It's an issue where I think both sides are right, thus a clusterfuck for conversation.

I'll be watching The West Wing instead, I'm on the season finale of season five. It's not as bad post-Sorkin as I would have thought.

It's interesting, the EITC is something that I think could get thru Congress, but it isn't nearly as sexy as minimum wage hikes. Yet, they accomplish the same thing in the end, it's just that the EITC is more targeted and efficient.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I find it funny that you started a thread to ask a question about something you say you have no interest in watching.

I am curious on how many people actually watch this and the reasons why and why not. Not really sure how that is funny?

 

[ozzman]

I'm sure O will ignore vets once again in his speech.

 

[NDBoiler]

SOTU is hard to watch simply with the applause every 10 seconds. It really breaks up the flow of the speech and drags it out way too long. Would be nice to see how the speech would go without being in front of a large audience. It might even encourage more viewers that way.

I will try to watch as much as I can stand. Most politicians just chap my ass though.

 

[GoIrish41]

Are we really so cynical that we will dismiss the president's message before he delivers it? I'm going to watch to hear what he has to say. It is a small price to pay as a citizen of the country to listen to our leader lay out his goals for the year and challenge Congress to get on board. My understanding is that he is going to lean more heavily on the executive order this year because he is tired of waiting for Congress to get their shit together. If he talks about that, I think watching the Rs' rage take hold is going to be more compelling television than anything else that will be on TV tonight.

 

[chicago51]

I'll probably watch but I am undecided as I do hate state of the unions mostly for all the applauses every 20 seconds.

I do appreciate the President focusing on income inequality as I do think it is the moral crisis of our time. I assume he'll talk about raising the minimum wage, making a college education more affordable to create more equal opportunity, job training, and infrastructure investment. To me that is all well and good but...

That being said I don't know how the President can talk about income inequality and then be working on fast tracking a secret trade agreement (Trans Pacific Partnership) that I can only assume will make it easier to outsource more middle class American jobs. Not saying fair (and I mean fair) trade agreements can't be good for the country and all the countries involved but I can only assume with the TPP being kept completely secret in terms of the details and the President trying to fast tract it through Congress without amendments or full debate is a sign that this not a good deal for workers. If it was such a great deal why be so secret?

It took a lot of money for President Obama to get elected and re-elected. Many of Obama's high donors are Wall Street types so I assume this trade agreement is Obama paying back all his Wall Street donors as I think they would likely benefit the most from this trade agreement.

Like I said I would be willing to consider supporting the TPP if I actually knew what the trade agreement consisted of.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Are we really so cynical that we will dismiss the president's message before he delivers it? I'm going to watch to hear what he has to say. It is a small price to pay as a citizen of the country to listen to our leader lay out his goals for the year and challenge Congress to get on board. My understanding is that he is going to lean more heavily on the executive order this year because he is tired of waiting for Congress to get their shit together. If he talks about that, I think watching the Rs' rage take hold is going to be more compelling television than anything else that will be on TV tonight.

No... he is tired of Congress not agreeing with him and his agenda. And his power through EO is limited so if that's his plan to pass his agenda... well, he doesn't have much of one.

 

[woolybug25]

I find it funny that you started a thread to ask a question about something you say you have no interest in watching.

Or that he feels that it wont be bi-tartisan as he clearly outlines his conservative viewpoint.

Not watching the state of the union because you don't agree with the politics of the president. But yeah... we don't understand why politics isn't more "bi-partisan".

 

[GoIrish41]

No... he is tired of Congress not agreeing with him and his agenda. And his power through EO is limited so if that's his plan to pass his agenda... well, he doesn't have much of one.

So, should he just adopt their agenda instead? Obstructionism should not be rewarded. He has a job to do and he will attempt to do it with our without the help of Congress. As a voter, I expect no less of him ... successful or not.

 

[Irish YJ]

Will read the cliff notes tomorrow.... yawn... so tired of the dems, and growing tired of the pubs.

#less government
#less special interests
#fair/flat tax
#don't trust either
#retiring somewhere other than the US

 

[Corry]

I'll watch and I'll watch the Republican response. Who is giving it this year? Anyone's got to be better than let me get a drink of water mid sentence Rubio.

 

[T Town Tommy]

So, should he just adopt their agenda instead? Obstructionism should not be rewarded. He has a job to do and he will attempt to do it with our without the help of Congress. As a voter, I expect no less of him ... successful or not.

So now Congress not agreeing with his agenda is obstructionism? Until he decides to come to the middle more, his agenda will not be successful. He could learn a lot from Bill Clinton. However, being a lame duck President he has no desire to meet in the middle, therefore he will go down as one of the most failed Presidents of modern time.

 

[palinurus]

So, should he just adopt their agenda instead? Obstructionism should not be rewarded. He has a job to do and he will attempt to do it with our without the help of Congress. As a voter, I expect no less of him ... successful or not.

A leader looks for common ground and tries to negotiate. Obama is a petulant, elitist autocrat with a "pen and a phone," using Executive Order to get what very few people support or elected him to do. What you call "obstructionism" is the political process; executive order abuse is the way autocrats get around the process they can't master.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'll watch and I'll watch the Republican response. Who is giving it this year? Anyone's got to be better than let me get a drink of water mid sentence Rubio.

Last year they had 2 responses. This year I think it is Darth Vader and Monty Burns.

 

[GoIrish41]

So now Congress not agreeing with his agenda is obstructionism? Until he decides to come to the middle more, his agenda will not be successful. He could learn a lot from Bill Clinton. However, being a lame duck President he has no desire to meet in the middle, therefore he will go down as one of the most failed Presidents of modern time.

He couldn't be closer to the middle than he is now. His signature legislation was a Republican idea. He has caved more than I'd like on just about every budget battle save the Republican government shutdown. Maybe the Rs should begin to show some leadership and join him in the middle where some things could get done. As a party, they are further to the right than they have been in my lifetime.

 

[T Town Tommy]

He couldn't be closer to the middle than he is now. His signature legislation was a Republican idea. He has caved more than I'd like on just about every budget battle save the Republican government shutdown. Maybe the Rs should begin to show some leadership and join him in the middle where some things could get done. As a party, they are further to the right than they have been in my lifetime.

If that's what you think then so be it but I will respectfully disagree.

 

[chicago51]

I'll watch and I'll watch the Republican response. Who is giving it this year? Anyone's got to be better than let me get a drink of water mid sentence Rubio.

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House. No doubt a strategy for trying to improve their national image among woman.

 

[palinurus]

He couldn't be closer to the middle than he is now. His signature legislation was a Republican idea. He has caved more than I'd like on just about every budget battle save the Republican government shutdown. Maybe the Rs should begin to show some leadership and join him in the middle where some things could get done. As a party, they are further to the right than they have been in my lifetime.

I'm with Tommy, since we just see the world drastically differently, with all respect, so we can't discuss too much. But the bolded language is grossly misleading; the healthcare bill he passed is not anywhere near what conservatives had urged many years ago.

 

[GoIrish41]

A leader looks for common ground and tries to negotiate. Obama is a petulant, elitist autocrat with a "pen and a phone," using Executive Order to get what very few people support or elected him to do. What you call "obstructionism" is the political process; executive order abuse is the way autocrats get around the process they can't master.

Really? These flagrant "abuses" have helped to shape and civilize this country.

Equal Employment Opportunity
At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 which bars discrimination in federal employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Affirmative Action
On March 6, 1961 President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

Works Progress Administration
In 1935, at the height of the Great Depression, FDR used Executive Order number 7034 to create the Works Progress Administration, which put more than 8.5 million Americans back to work rebuilding the country one bridge, road, and mural at a time.

Desegregation of Schools
In 1954 the Supreme Court decided Brown vs. Board of Education. But it would take much more than a court order to end school segregation, as the nation saw in 1957 when Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus refused to comply. Dwight D. Eisenhower'S EO 10730 placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent in U.S. army troops to ensure that nine black children could safely attend Little Rock High School.

The Emancipation Proclamation.
The Proclamation freed all slaves living in the Confederacy, though left out the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia, which had yet to secede.

Obama has signed 167 executive orders during his presidency -- roughly half of the number that W. signed.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm with Tommy, since we just see the world drastically differently, with all respect, so we can't discuss too much. But the bolded language is grossly misleading; the healthcare bill he passed is not anywhere near what conservatives had urged many years ago.

It used to be called Romneycare, named after a Republican governor, and is the law of the land in Mass. So, I'll have to disagree with you.

 

[IrishLax]

So, should he just adopt their agenda instead? Obstructionism should not be rewarded. He has a job to do and he will attempt to do it with our without the help of Congress. As a voter, I expect no less of him ... successful or not.

Yes? Civics 101... the legislative branch is supposed to make the laws. I respect his right to give input, use his veto, make EOs, etc. but you seem to be arguing that the President should have the right or ability to set the policy agenda for the country. I don't think many would agree with you.

 

[chicago51]

In all seriousness I would hope this country is having a serious debate on income inequality. I would welcome all conservative ideas on how it address this issue. If people seriously think a flat tax will somehow make the worker to CEO pay ratio less insane (CEO should make a lot more but 42 to 1 in 1980 is more realistic than the 120 to 1 ratio we have today) I would love to hear why it will work.

 

[Irish YJ]

He couldn't be closer to the middle than he is now. His signature legislation was a Republican idea. He has caved more than I'd like on just about every budget battle save the Republican government shutdown. Maybe the Rs should begin to show some leadership and join him in the middle where some things could get done. As a party, they are further to the right than they have been in my lifetime.

I agree the pubs are getting farther and farther right, but to say O couldn't be closer to the middle is absolutely ludicrous.

#PartySystemOutOfHand

 

[irishog77]

Yes? Civics 101... the legislative branch is supposed to make the laws. I respect his right to give input, use his veto, make EOs, etc. but you seem to be arguing that the President should have the right or ability to set the policy agenda for the country. I don't think many would agree with you.

No, Lax, I think many WOULD agree with him. That is the problem.