Obama to refocus on economy in State of the Union

By JULIE PACE

World ( 34 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

34 Comments

Login to comment

  • -7

    Serrano

    "Obama to refocus on economy"

    This headline is misleading, Obama has never focused on the economy.

  • 5

    paulinusa

    “I am prepared, eager and anxious to do a big deal, a big package that ends this governance by crisis where every two weeks or every two months or every six months we are threatening this hard-won recovery,” he said last week.

    But the Republicans can't control themselves. To them, a constant crisis is like an addictive drug.

  • 0

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Paul, you took them words right out of my mouth! Just can't wait to see the propaganda by the FOX news network! Republicans will NEVER be happy as long as Mr.Obama is in the White House!

  • -4

    Surf O'Holic

    Focus how? On how to destroy it more quickly? How about another 800 billion stimulus package or three that go directly into the pockets of the Wall Street cronies. Helicopter Ben would gladly distribute the freshly-printed bills from the official helo.

  • -1

    sailwind

    NO please NO, go golfing, shoot skeet, take the Missus out for dinner, take Bo for a walk, please anything but actually putting your hands back into anything to do with the economy.

  • 0

    Laguna

    The GOP seems to be coalescing (as much as that fractious bunch can) around a rather unique strategy regarding the sequestration: That it was a terrible idea all of Obama's doing, and that the GOP will prevent attempts to halt it from happening.

    Republicans may have changed their tactics, but their strategy is the same: to prevent any significant economic recovery by blocking meaningful reform and opposing any revenue increase. Boehner has already preemptively ruled out any revenue increases, even those he supported just months ago (such as eliminating tax breaks on corporate jets).

    The GOP would have the entire $1.2 trillion of sequestration cuts to be made entirely from non-defense programs. They also demand that dollar-for-dollar spending cuts be made in exchange for raising the debt \ceiling in March - also, apparently, from non-defense spending; in other words, they are demanding over $2.7 trillion dollars in spending reductions on healthcare, because that is the only government program large enough to absorb such costs.

    Funny how they're still stuck in their austerity mode while Europe seems to be shifting away from it after watching the disaster such policies have unhinged on Great Britain and Spain. They would, there is no question, cause great harm to the American economy if that would improve their political chances.

  • -3

    SuperLib

    They would, there is no question, cause great harm to the American economy if that would improve their political chances.

    That's what it's about. Create chaos, then tell everyone that chaos happened on "Obama's watch."

  • -4

    bass4funk

    @Super

    That's what it's about. Create chaos, then tell everyone that chaos happened on "Obama's watch."

    Yep, that about sums it all up. I know you like to think that Obama is the greatest President since the founding of the US, but when has this guy ever taken the economy seriously? The last 4 years? Absolutely NOT. Dems and Liberals never, ever want to hold this guy accountable for anything. Now he wants to do and start what he should have been doing the last 4 years instead of concentrating on issues that can wait.

    @El

    Just can't wait to see the propaganda by the FOX news network! Republicans will NEVER be happy as long as Mr.Obama is in the White House!

    Then you must be really happy watching and reading 98% of the bias liberal media spin machine where they bathe in propaganda, but yes, Republicans will never be happy as long as Obama is in office, the same when President Bush was in office, liberals weren't happy either during his presidency. Welcome to the world of partisan politics.

  • 2

    Laguna

    ...when has this guy ever taken the economy seriously?

    Some peoples' memories are either very selective or very short-term (or perhaps unable to have formed an accurate impression to begin with).

    Let us not forget America in January 2009 when Obama took over from the previous GOP president, that "he-who-shall-not-be-named" rascal who seems to have disappeared into some witness protection program: it was in an economic death spiral, with its banks and car makers in deep trouble and unemployment rising at the rate of 800,000 a month. Obama's responses—the stimulus (as aggressive as he could make it given GOP opposition);, bailing out General Motors and Chrysler; forcing banks through a stress test and requiring them to raise capital (so that they are now in much better shape than European banks)—helped avert a Depression. He's also run end-around GOP opposition to put money in middle-class pockets by extending unemployment insurance, instituting a temporary payroll tax holiday, and aggressively pushing utilization of support services such as supplemental nutrition.

    Really, listening to the GOP today is like listening to a passenger complain about the co-pilot who'd taken control from the pilot who had set the aircraft into a steep dive and had brought it back to level flight for turbulence.

    Annoying, sure, but part of me wants the GOP to continue its reliance on such increasingly transparent tactics. Americans were smart enough to note the mendacity in 2012 (and don't get started about the House, where the GOP LOST the popular vote), and despite Republican education policy, it is unlikely they'll get stupid enough to return the GOP to power in 2014 or 2016. Buh-bye.

  • -3

    Serrano

    I keep forgetting, any U.S. economic difficulties or financial difficulties the U.S. government has can be traced back to the mistakes of George W. Bush and the Republicans. I'm certain President Obama and the Democrats will eventually get us out of this mess.

  • -3

    Surf O'Holic

    " it was in an economic death spiral, with its banks and car makers in deep trouble and unemployment rising at the rate of 800,000 a month."

    Car makers are businesses, and fail when their products fall out of favor with Mr Market and when the management stuffs up.

    The banks were stuffed up due to high risk instruments that blew up in their faces from Sub-Prime mortgage lending to otherwise unqualified buyers. For that, the appreciation goes back to Bubba's Home-Loan Act. And let's not forget NAFTA accelerating the offshoring of manufacturing(taxes and worker union come to mind). Oh, let's just blame Nixon. Pin the tail on the donkey politics.

  • 0

    sailwind

    He's also run end-around GOP opposition to put money in middle-class pockets by extending unemployment insurance, instituting a temporary payroll tax holiday, and aggressively pushing utilization of support services such > as supplemental nutrition.

    Middle Class Pockets under Obama.

    Household income is below recession levels, report says

    Household income is down sharply since the recession ended three years ago, according to a report released Thursday, providing another sign of the stubborn weakness of the economic recovery.

    From June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted **median household income fell 4.8 percent, **to $50,964, according to a report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/household-income-is-below-recession-levels-report-says/2012/08/23/aa497460-ec80-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

  • -2

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Folks, Mr.Obama is the US president for the next 4 years, does this mean that REPUBLICANS will keep up their same old tactics? Strategies of listening like ditto heads to their lord EL Rushbo??

  • 2

    Surf O'Holic

    Elbuda, do you really think the Dems supported any Republican president?

  • 0

    Laguna

    Household income is down sharply since the recession ended three years ago, according to a report released Thursday, providing another sign of the stubborn weakness of the economic recovery.

    Thanks for bringing that up, Sail, non sequitur though it is as it is American economic policy since the Reagan administration - predominantly Republican policy - that has brought us to this point.

    Income inequality exploded under Reagan's revised tax schedule.. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, he disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class,and economic growth since then has done little to help them. Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled - all while their share of federal taxes has gone down.

    In fact, a major complaint of the compromise on ending the Bush tax cuts was that those earning over $450,000 would not realize any savings. Such complaints reveal ignorance of the tax code: even the ultra-rich benefit by having their incomes up to that level taxed at a lower rate, thus saving them more in dollars (though not in percentage terms) as the middle class.

    You can read a bit about how the "Reagan revolution" was really a revolution for the rich at the link below. You can deny it all you'd like, but the numbers support it: America is becoming more wealth-unequal than even the most bananaist of republics; all Obama has been able to do is to slow that trend.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/can_we_blame_income_inequality_on_republicans.html

  • -2

    sailwind

    Income inequality exploded under Reagan's revised tax schedule

    Reagan?????? I might as well blame FDR for Social Security going bankrupt.

    Reagan's Presidency was from 1980 to 1988. It ended 24 years ago and your going to actually lay income inequality on Reagan in 2013? Are you trying to tell me that Bill Clinton wasn't elected and and served 8 years as the top Democrat in the nation and didn't lift his finger to stop this horrid Reagan cancer from going on and on ? I thought the whole Democrat convention this year was all about how wonderful Clinton's handling of the economy was.

    Obama's stimulus was a total failure, he started with a 7.8 unemployment rate and 4 years later its now 7.9 percent. He's flushed trillions of dollars in spending borrowed from China and has piled more debt then anyone can even fathom and median incomes have DROPPED. He claimed his health care reform law would lower premiums and they've increased by DOUBLE digits this year. Even the NYT has to admit it:

    Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/business/despite-new-health-law-some-see-sharp-rise-in-premiums.html?pagewanted=all

    He's been a complete disaster for the middle class in gas prices, health care costs and family income.

  • 0

    Laguna

    Reagan??????

    Yup. Reagan.

    Check out these two charts from the Congressional Budget Office which show, respectively, income levels of varying shares of income demographic groups and their respective growth rates over the years from a baseline of 1979 (Carter's last year). You will notice a steep drop in the share of income of the top 1% that came about as a result of the Clinton tax structure; you'll notice how that drop rebounded and more as GWB's tax structure replaced it.

    As an aside, premium growth is the response of the vaunted free-market to universal healthcare and has zero to do with healthcare costs themselves, which are really the only important issue. Many studies have shown that the ACA has already lead to lower healthcare costs in general.

    A good grasp of economics is useful when entering into a discussion about it.

  • 0

    Laguna

    Whoops - forgot to add the link to the Congressional Budget Office charts: http://forums.finalgear.com/attachments/political-discussion/a-compilation-of-articles-and-videos-regarding-income-inequality-in-the-united-states/5140d1332704984-inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png

  • 2

    SuperLib

    bas4funk: I know you like to think that Obama is the greatest President since the founding of the US

    More AM radio.

  • 2

    SuperLib

    Surf O'Holic: Elbuda, do you really think the Dems supported any Republican president?

    Republicans are on pace to shatter all filibuster records in the history of the US. There's "not supporting" and then there's "obstructing."

  • 2

    SuperLib

    sailwind: Obama's stimulus was a total failure, he started with a 7.8 unemployment rate and 4 years later its now 7.9 percent.

    The stimulus dollars are hard to track since we don't know what would have happened if the stimulus packages had not been created. You should know that.

  • 2

    Madverts

    "The stimulus dollars are hard to track since we don't know what would have happened if the stimulus packages had not been created. You should know that."

    I guess it's the media again corrupting your thought waves Super, they do it all the time there is a Democrat president.

    Unless you have a tea party tin-foil hat to block out the voices, it's kinda hard to understand the difference between great Republican stimulus packages from W, and the terrible ones from the democrats. Think of it as catching AIDS, as it is worse when you're gay, because obviously that's the bad strain and we all know gays aren't ever Republicans - well unless they get caught.....

    In fact, the economic conundrum has visibly got Sarge in such a muddle he can't remember voting for Bush twice, or even championing the effects of the trickle-down tax cuts enacted by Bush on JT all those years ago! Those same tax cuts that have yet to be be paid for. That's right, the same tax cuts during a recession and two new wars that contributed an extra tarif to the national debt, that the Republicans clearly now don't want to pay for so they brought the world another stroke of genius by manufacturing their fiscal cliff.

    To be fair you have to be a never-say-die Republican to get this stuff, trust me, arithmetic the past and facts are for Marxists. AM radio say it all the time.

  • -1

    bass4funk

    @Super

    More AM radio.

    Well, You liberals have the TV, print, the national media on your side. You can't have everything, you guys tried and failed....miserably.

    Seriously, name me ANY huge economical achievement that Obama is responsible for that we will look back on with pride. (except for adding to the deficit which he is already has entered the Guinness book of world records)

  • 0

    yabits

    Well, You liberals have the TV, print, the national media on your side.

    Actually, anyone who is intelligent enough to understand the different aspects of an argument and can present those aspects fairly is likely to be seen on the liberal side.

    I don't believe the people on AM radio who pander to the narrow-minded actually hold those views, as long as they can rake in the bucks from the rubes they've got eating out of their hands. The same holds true of "professional wrestling."

  • -1

    bass4funk

    @yabits

    Actually, anyone who is intelligent enough to understand the different aspects of an argument and can present those aspects fairly is likely to be seen on the liberal side.

    Ahh, that's why the now (out of existence) Air America and most of the other liberal stations Bill Press and Stephanie Miller have an almost minuscule audience. Progressive radio has never caught on and most likely with the constant name calling and degrading and mockery of people, they will always alienate the majority of Americans.

    I don't believe the people on AM radio who pander to the narrow-minded actually hold those views, as long as they can rake in the bucks from the rubes they've got eating out of their hands. The same holds true of "professional wrestling.

    Trying to equate Pro Wrestling and talk radio is like equating Chocolate to Mayonnaise. So you are implying that people that listen to talk radio (I'm assuming you mean Conservative talk radio) are narrow-minded, I worked in TV and yes, it is a ratings business, all of it, but that doesn't mean that talk radio is NOT informative or educational.

  • -1

    yabits

    So you are implying that people that listen to talk radio (I'm assuming you mean Conservative talk radio) are narrow-minded

    I have tuned in Fox News and listened to Limbaugh quite a number of times. I have never, but never, heard any of them properly frame the liberal argument so that they can refute it intelligently. Yes, it is like professional wrestling in that the "opponent" is always a straw man destined to take the fall.

    There are terrific liberal news sources that which can articulate the conservatives' point of view before presenting the counter-argument extremely well. The Nation and The Atlantic Monthly have been around for 150 years now. The New Republic is a relative newcomer at 99 years. Liberals tend to favor the printed word for news and information.

  • 0

    sailwind

    The stimulus dollars are hard to track since we don't know what would have happened if the stimulus packages had not been created.

    What's so hard to track? Unless the money was poured into a black hole it should be quite easy to track where the money went to and the results of the spending. I see 7.9 percent unemployment as the result myself.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Liberals tend to favor the printed word for news and information.

    When they're not tuning into Jon Stewart I'd hazard a guess.

  • -1

    bass4funk

    @yabits

    I have tuned in Fox News and listened to Limbaugh quite a number of times. I have never, but never, heard any of them properly frame the liberal argument so that they can refute it intelligently. Yes, it is like professional wrestling in that the "opponent" is always a straw man destined to take the fall.

    Now I never said that the Right don't have their fair share of over the top loons. Limbaugh doesn't speak for all conservatives. Not to get off track, but you do have a fair equal Conservative vs liberal debates all the time, all the time, now if you are referring to over the top, ultra-progressive argument, then it gets harder, because they are a small segment of the population and the majority of them have arguments that are way to outlandish for the average American.

    Obama's stimulus was a total failure, he started with a 7.8 unemployment rate and 4 years later its now 7.9 percent. He's flushed trillions of dollars in spending borrowed from China and has piled more debt then anyone can even fathom and median incomes have DROPPED. He claimed his health care reform law would lower premiums and they've increased by DOUBLE digits this year. Even the NYT has to admit it:

    This the problem right here. You are looking at 85% of problems affecting the US. But leave it to the liberal spin machine to make it sound like his stimulus has done wonders, unemployment is 7.9% and watch, it will go up for sure!

  • -1

    yabits

    Now I never said that the Right don't have their fair share of over the top loons.

    I would consider Ted Nugent to be one of those. And guess what? Some Republican Congressman from Texas has thought it would be a great idea to invite Mr. Nugent to the State of the Union message.

    Keep in mind that some of the President's address will almost certainly be devoted to gun violence and safety in our country. Perhaps this will give Mr. Nugent the opportunity to heckle the President.

    I don't know of any Democrat who has thought it fit to bring someone of Nugent's mental caliber to the shrine of our democracy. And I seriously don't understand how bringing Mr. "Wham-Bam-Sweet-Poontang" to this major address will do anything to improve the image of the Republican Party.

  • 0

    sailwind

    And I seriously don't understand how bringing Mr. "Wham-Bam-Sweet-Poontang" to this major address will do anything to improve the image of the Republican Party.

    Sounds like he heard that Sandra Fluke was going to be there.

  • -1

    bass4funk

    @yabits

    And look who's in the senate....Al Franken You want to talk about taking this issue seriously, lets start with congress.

  • -1

    yabits

    Sounds like he heard that Sandra Fluke was going to be there

    Since Fluke was six years old when he penned it, that would make sense.

    And look who's in the senate....Al Franken

    Again, this is the typical "over the top loon" remark. Just throw out a name without any supporting evidence. Franken put his name in front of the voters of Minnesota and was selected by those voters. (I'm betting he'll be re-elected by an wide margin, since he's done a very good job for the people.)

    I seriously doubt if Nugent would be able to muster much support from my old home state of Michigan. Especially when voters are reminded of how he avoided being inducted into service in Vietnam by covering himself in is own excrement. Sounds like he knew a Republican would welcome him into our Congress.

  • -2

    bass4funk

    @yabits

    Again, this is the typical "over the top loon" remark. Just throw out a name without any supporting evidence. Franken put his name in front of the voters of Minnesota and was selected by those voters. (I'm betting he'll be re-elected by an wide margin, since he's done a very good job for the people.)

    That's fine. I have no problem if Minnesota wants to elect a far-left nut job like Franken it doesn't bother me in the least.

    I seriously doubt if Nugent would be able to muster much support from my old home state of Michigan.

    The ratings went through the roof last week when Nugent was on CNN, which is something they desperately need.

    Especially when voters are reminded of how he avoided being inducted into service in Vietnam by covering himself in is own excrement. Sounds like he knew a Republican would welcome him into our Congress.

    Clinton made sure to get a draft deferment. I hope you get on him for that as well. And look what happened.

    Anyway, back to the topic. This is all just a total ruse by a man that has not done anything the last 4 years except rack up more debt and now we are supposed to believe he's serious now? I can already see where this country is headed and its downward. This president isn't even remotely trying to meet half way with Republicans or trying to be a centrist like Clinton. Obama wants to only impose his radical far left progressive ideology on America forcing the majority of Americans to adapt and live the way he wants. That's not democracy!

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all