US State of the Union 2011: Barack Obama to focus on jobs

[Netto Azure]

State of the Union 2011: Barack Obama to focus on jobs

Mr Obama is seeking to re-engage with the business community​

US President Barack Obama will call for new public spending to create jobs in his state of the union address, setting up a clash with opponents who say cuts to government are the way forward.

In the president's yearly address to Congress, Mr Obama is expected to call for new investment in education, research and infrastructure.

Mr Obama said at the weekend creating jobs was his "number one focus".

Republicans have warned they will reject his calls for added spending.

BBC North America editor Mark Mardell says State of the Union speeches are rarely momentous, but they are opportunities. Last year Mr Obama was watched by 48 million people.

The president can use the speech to condition the debate ahead of his 2012 re-election bid, claiming the mantle of reasonableness and consensus, our correspondent says.

But it is hard to see how Mr Obama can avoid a bitter, bare knuckle fight further down the road, in a Congress where Republicans now control the House of Representatives and have trimmed the Democrats' sails in the Senate, our correspondent adds.

Shift to centre
In Mr Obama's state of the union address, his second, he will lay out his policy agenda for the next year and will attempt to shape the national political narrative to his advantage.

Well if anyone listened to last year's speech, the first section ALSO focused on jobs...but surprisingly the Healthcare Act passed after lol.

Anyways it would be fun to see the "mingling" of legislators since the seating arrangement will be "less on partisan lines" :/

Then again the only thing that could happen this year is probably spending cuts, and tax cuts if President Obama keeps "moving to the center" in terms of the American Spectrum.

 

[Bela]

I like how you used "moving to the center" in quotes.

https://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/americans-allowing-tax-cuts-wealthy-expire.aspx

With about one in three Americans, including a minority of independents and Democrats, in favor of extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers, Democrats may not be putting themselves at great political risk by allowing the tax cuts to expire for wealthy Americans. In fact, the middle ground of extending tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans but allowing them to expire for wealthy Americans -- the Democrats' most likely proposal -- is the specific option the public prefers most.

The truth is, a majority of the American public would have liked to have seen those Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. If he were truly reflective of the American people's opinion, he would have let those tax cuts expire.

Also note that you only hear about President Obama being "centrist" if he accepts Republican proposals.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I like how you used "moving to the center" in quotes.

https://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/americans-allowing-tax-cuts-wealthy-expire.aspx


The truth is, a majority of the American public would have liked to have seen those Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. If he were truly reflective of the American people's opinion, he would have let those tax cuts expire.

Also note that you only hear about President Obama being "centrist" if he accepts Republican proposals.

He doesn't have power over that, though. Whether or not the tax cuts expire is a power of Congress. Then again, the Democrats were one seat shy of a supermajority in the Senate and had a large majority in the House before the new Congress began, so maybe there is some blame on the Democrats there.

I think what's happening is more Senate Democrats want to look more centrist. Not only is White House up for grabs in 2012, but 23 Democratic Senate seats will be up for grabs versus a mere 10 Republican seats. The Democrats are trying to change their image after the slaughtering they suffered in the 2010 midterm elections. If Democrats keep pursuing a leftists agenda, the Republicans will surely control both houses of Congress in the 113th Congress, and maybe the Presidency as well.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I look forward to seeing the Democrats and Republicans come together today for "The State of the Union" :)

 

[geox123]

Whenever you see Democrats being bipartisan, it usually means they're bending over for the Republicans.

But anyway, on jobs. If you give my dad his job back (grain of salt people ;D), I'll consider Obama for a second term, that is, if the GOP doesn't have anything better to offer.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

*yawn*

Doesn't matter what he says or promises, until Obama and the Democrats get a damn spine things are just going to continue how they are.

 

[Involuntary Twitch]

Just saw it; I thought it was nice, and very inspirational! My family's all very liberal, and we're big supporters of Obama, so we watched it together and clapped whenever he said something we agreed with.

He's got a point about the educational reform, which ironically made me feel kind of guilty about watching the State of the Union rather than doing my homework. Eh. *shrug* It's important to stay in touch with our country.

I was really glad to see the democrats and republicans sit together, too. So much of politics today seems to be dictated by what parties want, rather than what the people want. Symbolic gesture in response to the tragedy in Tucson or no, it was a step in the right direction.

 

[Bela]

He doesn't have power over that, though. Whether or not the tax cuts expire is a power of Congress. Then again, the Democrats were one seat shy of a supermajority in the Senate and had a large majority in the House before the new Congress began, so maybe there is some blame on the Democrats there.

I think what's happening is more Senate Democrats want to look more centrist. Not only is White House up for grabs in 2012, but 23 Democratic Senate seats will be up for grabs versus a mere 10 Republican seats. The Democrats are trying to change their image after the slaughtering they suffered in the 2010 midterm elections. If Democrats keep pursuing a leftists agenda, the Republicans will surely control both houses of Congress in the 113th Congress, and maybe the Presidency as well.

You misunderstand me. Washington is beholden to lobbyists, who work to pressure our representatives into crafting legislation that is not in the public's interest, but rather that of large corporations. I am saying that what you call "centrist" is not based on where the American people stand on issues, but rather where the Washington establishment stands on issues--and this is a decidedly more conservative position. In other words, the President is not positioning himself in anyone's favor but in that of big business--and by extension--the Republican Party.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I saw a lot of contradictions in Obama's speech. Some example are when he said that government regulations are hurting businesses, then he bragged about the regulation bill the Dems passed right afterwards. He talked about how the country is suffering "crushing debt", but praised the almost $800 billion dollar failed stimulus and dodged the fact that he supports raising the debt ceiling. I also like how he spoke about making college more affordable when our college costs here in California are rising, funding is decreasing, and cuts are being made everywhere. All but one of my professors this term didn't print out a syllabus for the students in the class because, as they stated, public universities "have no more money". Those contradictions really stood out while I was watching.

 

[Netto Azure]

Well the speech went through the usual laundry list of issues.

He's probably going to concentrate on the 2 other legs of the Domestic Policy agenda Energy, and Education.

As for the contradictions, it just shows a lot of differing philosophies on the 2 parties. The Republican Response outlines a stark difference in political philosophy emphasizing "limited" government, and deficit reduction, while the President emphasizes investments and government spending as the form of proper counter-cyclical policy that is usually done during recessions.

TTC VIDEO - Economics 3rd Edition 27. Countercyclical Fiscal Policy

But really, I just cannot trust the opposition to really follow through with what it says, when history demonstrates otherwise, Then again it is just difficult to be pulling out the punch bowl when the bubble is going good so meh.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I saw a lot of contradictions in Obama's speech. Some example are when he said that government regulations are hurting businesses, then he bragged about the regulation bill the Dems passed right afterwards. He talked about how the country is suffering "crushing debt", but praised the almost $800 billion dollar failed stimulus and dodged the fact that he supports raising the debt ceiling. I also like how he spoke about making college more affordable when our college costs here in California are rising, funding in decreasing, and cuts are being made everywhere. All put one of my professors this term didn't print out a syllabus for the students in the class because, as they stated, public universities "have no more money". Those contradictions really stood out while I was watching.

I noticed those too, I kind of laughed at the irony of it while watching it.

 

[Netto Azure]

@Triforce: Haha. Yeah party discipline in the Democratic Party is such a weak thing admit. Even so they were able to pass much legislation that will somewhat alleviate current norms.

I saw a lot of contradictions in Obama's speech. Some example are when he said that government regulations are hurting businesses, then he bragged about the regulation bill the Dems passed right afterwards.

Still on that same line he said:

But I will not hesitate to create or enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people. (Applause.) That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe. It's why we have speed limits and child labor laws. It's why last year, we put in place consumer protections against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies and new rules to prevent another financial crisis. (Applause.) And it's why we passed reform that finally prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients. (Applause.)

Such regulations have saved lives and made our living conditions much better than what it would be.

He talked about how the country is suffering "crushing debt", but praised the almost $800 billion dollar failed stimulus and dodged the fact that he supports raising the debt ceiling.

Well that "failed" stimulus cushioned the blow of the recession as apparently the Bush Tax Cuts came in time on 2003 to cushion the bursting Tech Bubble. Then again this debate has been hashed over so many times...it's tiring.

I also like how he spoke about making college more affordable when our college costs here in California are rising, funding in decreasing, and cuts are being made everywhere. All put one of my professors this term didn't print out a syllabus for the students in the class because, as they stated, public universities "have no more money". Those contradictions really stood out while I was watching.

So true, but as was pointed out the responsibility of providing for education comes down to the reserved powers of the states themselves. The best the Federal Government can do is either fully guarantee tuition which I doubt will happen, or just give grants to lower income students or loans to fill in the gap. And the fact that California cannot go without a balanced budget and the low property tax rates does strike a blow on education funding, thereby the cuts themselves. (I do point out that Proposition 98 mandates 40% of the general budget go to Education, while Proposition 13 caps much property taxes which primarily funds education to 1% of the rate it was in 1978)

So yeah if someone wants to talk about education it's better to be Governor of the state than the President in many ways.

 

[donavannj]

I also like how he spoke about making college more affordable when our college costs here in California are rising, funding in decreasing, and cuts are being made everywhere. All but one of my professors this term didn't print out a syllabus for the students in the class because, as they stated, public universities "have no more money". Those contradictions really stood out while I was watching.

That is definitely a state-level issue, not one at the federal level, unless, as Netto said, the federal government decides to fully front tuition costs instead of sharing the load with state governments, which, as I can see on my Bills and Payment page for my school, the state of Minnesota pays for approximately 44% of what the actual costs of a student's tution would be if the state weren't paying. All my instructors were able to print out their syllabuses for their students this semester, so that's either an issue with the school you're attending or an issue with the universities in the state of California.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

@Triforce: Haha. Yeah party discipline in the Democratic Party is such a weak thing admit. Even so they were able to pass much legislation that will somewhat alleviate current norms.



Still on that same line he said:



Such regulations have saved lives and made our living conditions much better than what it would be.



Well that "failed" stimulus cushioned the blow of the recession as apparently the Bush Tax Cuts came in time on 2003 to cushion the bursting Tech Bubble. Then again this debate has been hashed over so many times...it's tiring.



So true, but as was pointed out the responsibility of providing for education comes down to the reserved powers of the states themselves. The best the Federal Government can do is either fully guarantee tuition which I doubt will happen, or just give grants to lower income students or loans to fill in the gap. And the fact that California cannot go without a balanced budget and the low property tax rates does strike a blow on education funding, thereby the cuts themselves. (I do point out that Proposition 98 mandates 40% of the general budget go to Education, while Proposition 13 caps much property taxes which primarily funds education to 1% of the rate it was in 1978)

So yeah if someone wants to talk about education it's better to be Governor of the state than the President in many ways.

I wasn't debating the merits of his policies, I was merely pointing out contradictions. Why criticize regulation then praise it almost immediately after? The stimulus was mostly pork barrel spending. A lot of money went toward things like infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, infrastructure is important, but it really doesn't have much to do with the recession.

I know good and well that education is a state issue. So why does the President bring up the topic like he or Congress can do anything about it other than to use rhetoric to appeal to the public's concerns when he is powerless to intervene? We spend so much of our budget on education, yet our schools (K-12 as well as higher education) are speaking of fee increases and budget cuts. Maybe if California decreased its reckless entitlement spending and did thing like increase grant awards, tuition subsidies for in-state residents, etc. our schools wouldn't be in the shape they are in. Californians pay some of the highest state-level tax rates in the nation in terms of income and sales tax, yet our high taxes fail to keep up with our reckless spending.

That is definitely a state-level issue, not one at the federal level, unless, as Netto said, the federal government decides to fully front tuition costs instead of sharing the load with state governments, which, as I can see on my Bills and Payment page for my school, the state of Minnesota pays for approximately 44% of what the actual costs of a student's tution would be if the state weren't paying. All my instructors were able to print out their syllabuses for their students this semester, so that's either an issue with the school you're attending or an issue with the universities in the state of California.

 

[donavannj]

Why Obama would bring up education: most Americans probably don't understand that it's the domain of the states or conveniently forget that and expect the federal government to do something, so it's mostly rhetoric. Though the federal government handles most of the student loans itself now, and it can certainly can do something about loan interest rates.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I wasn't debating the merits of his policies, I was merely pointing out contradictions. Why criticize regulation then praise it almost immediately after? The stimulus was mostly pork barrel spending. A lot of money went toward things like infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, infrastructure is important, but it really doesn't have much to do with the recession.

I know good and well that education is state issue. So why does the President bring up the topic like he or Congress can do anything about it other than to use rhetoric to appeal to the public's concerns when he is powerless to intervene? We spend so much of our budget on education, yet our schools (K-12 as well as higher education) are speaking of fee increases and budget cuts. Maybe if California decreased its reckless entitlement spending and did thing like increase grant awards, tuition subsidies for in-state residents, etc. our schools wouldn't be in the shape they are in. Californians pay some of the highest state-level tax rates in the nation in terms of income and sales tax, yet our high taxes fail to keep up with our reckless spending.

Well our infrastructure is falling apart plus in the process of fixing it, jobs are made that's what was behind this spending though sadly the jobs seem to have been only temporary as the money eventually dried out..so I guess you're right.

 

[Livewire]

I wasn't debating the merits of his policies, I was merely pointing out contradictions. Why criticize regulation then praise it almost immediately after? The stimulus was mostly pork barrel spending. A lot of money went toward things like infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, infrastructure is important, but it really doesn't have much to do with the recession.

I know good and well that education is a state issue. So why does the President bring up the topic like he or Congress can do anything about it other than to use rhetoric to appeal to the public's concerns when he is powerless to intervene? We spend so much of our budget on education, yet our schools (K-12 as well as higher education) are speaking of fee increases and budget cuts. Maybe if California decreased its reckless entitlement spending and did thing like increase grant awards, tuition subsidies for in-state residents, etc. our schools wouldn't be in the shape they are in. Californians pay some of the highest state-level tax rates in the nation in terms of income and sales tax, yet our high taxes fail to keep up with our reckless spending.

Infrastructure has nothing to do with "pork barrel" spending whatsoever, plus if you look at the economic figures, you will notice that the stimulus did work, even if the effect was marginal. And infrastructure has plenty to do with the recession. The lack of infrastructure projects, roads, bridges, etc, mean lack of jobs, they won't just build themselves. Jobs = Money. Therefore, more infrastructure projects = more money and jobs for Americans. But, seeing as nobody seems to understand that money doesn't grow on trees anymore, they think theses things will magically be given to them by the Republicans. You have to spend money in order to make money. That's Capitalism. If our taxation rate was higher, state and federal governments wouldn't be strapped for cash. Is reckless spending part of the problem? of course. But remember, that's how Capitalism works. You can't just not spend money, and still expect all of our basic necessities to be given to you.

The federal government could save itself a nice few hundred billion dollars by speeding up the withdrawal/transfer of powers from Iraq/Afghanistan, btw. The quickest way to cut reckless spending would be to end our foreign entanglements.

 

[Feign]

I can't trust Obama (even if I am Canadian) simply because he appointed the wrong kind of person for the FDA... That is to say, he appointed someone that has worked (and might still be working) for Monsanto...

On the other hand, Palin's Sputnik flub is truly disheartening and I'd view people who vote for her in the future (2012?) just to be as stupid... I mean the Soviet Union collapsing is an integral part of history...

Both parties at this point disgust me, which I am glad I am not American... Not that voting for a 3rd party would work anyway (the Simpson's Halloween Citizen Kang comes to mind).

 

[Livewire]

I can't trust Obama (even if I am Canadian) simply because he appointed the wrong kind of person for the FDA... That is to say, he appointed someone that has worked (and might still be working) for Monsanto...

On the other hand, Palin's Sputnik flub is truly disheartening and I'd view people who vote for her in the future (2012?) just to be as stupid... I mean the Soviet Union collapsing is an integral part of history...

Both parties at this point disgust me, which I am glad I am not American... Not that voting for a 3rd party would work anyway (the Simpson's Halloween Citizen Kang comes to mind).

To be fair, Michael R. Taylor never worked for Mosanto, but he did work for a law firm that wanted their Growth Hormone FDA approved. However, Conserative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas worked for Mosanto. :/ Good God.

But I agree, Palin should never be considered Presidental material, ever. I prefer my executives to be able to find Russia on a map, and to be able to differentiate between the countries, thank you.

But that's what happens with the Two party system, and our divided congress, neither party can do much of anything except continue to waffle and bicker.