State of The Union

[Conan71]

No seals on two of them.  Are they useless empty?

I'm praying, but doubtful, this speech will be a single-kegger.

[Red Arrow]

How much do I drink if a Republican yells "Liar!" A lot?  A little?  Do I just chug whatever's in front of me and turn off the TV?

One shot per "Liar" or equivalent.  Let us know tomorrow how you feel. Chugging and turning off the TV is cheating.  If righties have to watch the whole show, so do you.

Drink something decent, maybe you won't get a headache tomorrow.

[we vs us]

Not a "liar!" throughout the whole thing.  Now what'll i do?  I'm stone cold sober.

Two interesting things:  Someone had the Democrats make a concerted effort to wear bright colors and be seen smiling and laughing and even dancing in the aisles (!!).  For most of the speech, Biden was having the time of his life.  An effort, perhaps, to make them seem more accessible?

And Obama's eye contact, posture, and speech was focused on people in the chamber, rather than at the TV cameras.  There was a whole lot of lecturing of both parties.  Including the Supreme Court, which was a surprise.  Funny to see Alito slip up and mouth a pissed off response. No surprise:  I dug it.

[Hoss]

Not a "liar!" throughout the whole thing.  Now what'll i do?  I'm stone cold sober.

Two interesting things:  Someone had the Democrats make a concerted effort to wear bright colors and be seen smiling and laughing and even dancing in the aisles (!!).  For most of the speech, Biden was having the time of his life.  An effort, perhaps, to make them seem more accessible?

And Obama's eye contact, posture, and speech was focused on people in the chamber, rather than at the TV cameras.  There was a whole lot of lecturing of both parties.  Including the Supreme Court, which was a surprise.  Funny to see Alito slip up and mouth a pissed off response. No surprise:  I dug it.

Note to dude or dudette doing the Republican Response next time.  It might serve you to actually listen to the address so when you respond to it, your points don't come off as irrelevant.

At least he wasn't Bobby Jindal.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Republican response was to another speech, somewhere else.

And why is it that no one dares to address the topic of the $12 trillion debt of the last 28 years??  Oh, yeah...that's the past, so it must be forgotten.  And there hasn't been that big a deficit yet under Obama.  Yep, it is coming, but so far, the budget for the year ending last Sept is still Bush II.  We are moving toward more big deficits.  Was and is because of the 2001 tax cuts.  Changed a surplus into deficit.  Even Reagan/Bush I knew better than that.  Sounds like there are quite a few here who have drunk the magic kool-aid of Fox-land.

I bet these are some of the same people who vote for Inhofe.

These things really aren't all that difficult.  All that is required is the ability to read. And anyone can google the US Constitution, as well as most if not all of the other pertinent law.

Utopia you think?  So, the rationalization... no, wait, that is the outright statement that in "times of war" the law of the land is disposable.  And then we take it to the next step of stooping to their level.  Yeah, that's what my Utopian expectation is;  we behave just as badly as they are.  What a noble ambition for an honorable country!! 

As far as getting information to prevent another WTC event.  Well, I will defer on that point to the experts on the effectiveness of torture.  FBI, CIA, every legitimate, credible expert on the subject, and John McCain.  It doesn't work.  And even Bush II guys and our own CIA have admitted that nothing of value has been gained by any of that.

But, I guess it just makes our macho selves feel better to fume and bluster.  Does it?
I guess the most fundamental question I would ask, and I would be very interested in hearing a real reply to this;

Why are you NOT preaching good ol' American values that you were taught in school, hopefully at home, and at church (except of course, if you went to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson church.)??

And second, why do you have such an apparently scornful tone about those same good ol' American values?

Ends justify the means and all that??

We have no treaty with them.  We have treaties with the entire world.  And it IS our supreme law of the land.  (See U.S. Constitution.)

George running oil business or baseball team???  Even the most diehard Fox fan cannot possibly say that with a straight face.  He was too busy coking up and being drunk to bother with pesky details of business.  Like everything in his life, this was handed to him (remember the loans and no payback terms to get the baseball team?)  Do you remember seeing George during the last 8 years.  And how often he was obviously drunk while in public?  Or is it the work of a serious, sober head of state to give a shoulder massage to another head of state?

Can you actually believe that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine are not part of the Fox stable??  You have to be old enough to know better.

[Red Arrow]

Not a "liar!" throughout the whole thing.  Now what'll i do?  I'm stone cold sober.

Have a couple of drinks to express your surprise.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'll drink to that!!

[Conan71]

Republican response was to another speech, somewhere else.

And why is it that no one dares to address the topic of the $12 trillion debt of the last 28 years??  Oh, yeah...that's the past, so it must be forgotten.  And there hasn't been that big a deficit yet under Obama.  Yep, it is coming, but so far, the budget for the year ending last Sept is still Bush II.  We are moving toward more big deficits.  Was and is because of the 2001 tax cuts.  Changed a surplus into deficit.  Even Reagan/Bush I knew better than that.  Sounds like there are quite a few here who have drunk the magic kool-aid of Fox-land.

I bet these are some of the same people who vote for Inhofe.

These things really aren't all that difficult.  All that is required is the ability to read. And anyone can google the US Constitution, as well as most if not all of the other pertinent law.

Utopia you think?  So, the rationalization... no, wait, that is the outright statement that in "times of war" the law of the land is disposable.  And then we take it to the next step of stooping to their level.  Yeah, that's what my Utopian expectation is;  we behave just as badly as they are.  What a noble ambition for an honorable country!! 

As far as getting information to prevent another WTC event.  Well, I will defer on that point to the experts on the effectiveness of torture.  FBI, CIA, every legitimate, credible expert on the subject, and John McCain.  It doesn't work.  And even Bush II guys and our own CIA have admitted that nothing of value has been gained by any of that.

But, I guess it just makes our macho selves feel better to fume and bluster.  Does it?
I guess the most fundamental question I would ask, and I would be very interested in hearing a real reply to this;

Why are you NOT preaching good ol' American values that you were taught in school, hopefully at home, and at church (except of course, if you went to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson church.)??

And second, why do you have such an apparently scornful tone about those same good ol' American values?

Ends justify the means and all that??

We have no treaty with them.  We have treaties with the entire world.  And it IS our supreme law of the land.  (See U.S. Constitution.)

George running oil business or baseball team???  Even the most diehard Fox fan cannot possibly say that with a straight face.  He was too busy coking up and being drunk to bother with pesky details of business.  Like everything in his life, this was handed to him (remember the loans and no payback terms to get the baseball team?)  Do you remember seeing George during the last 8 years.  And how often he was obviously drunk while in public?  Or is it the work of a serious, sober head of state to give a shoulder massage to another head of state?

Can you actually believe that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine are not part of the Fox stable??  You have to be old enough to know better.

DNC/MSNBC talking points every single one and barely a cogent thought out of any paragraph.  No sh!t Sherlock, O'Reilly and Hannity DO have shows on Fox.

Try saying something other than re-hashing the tired old: "All conservatives are taking marching orders from that doped up dildo Limbaugh", "Bush was drunk", "(in a Mina bird voice) Haliburton...Haliburton...Haliburton!".  You aren't going to attract much interest around here if you cannot engage in intelligent conversation with at least a modicum of original thought.  Hate to tell you, but you are about the 1000th lib to come on here and try to stereotype the conservatives regulars here.

We are kind of a large dysfunctional family on TNF and always welcome new members and new ideas. 

Most of us aren't too much into partisan name calling or stereotyping (okay well we do stick a finger in each other's eye every now and then).

Welcome aboard, but please try a different schtick than the one that's been re-run too many times on here.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And still no direct answer to a direct question - actually a couple of direct questions.  I realize that is part of the 'playbook', so I never expect one.  Lot's of dissemination and talking about anything else.  (It would be interesting to see what a "cogent thought" would be in Fox-land.)  And asking a direct question and expecting a direct question does appear to be a new idea here, as in so much of Tulsa and OKC.

Original thought, huh?  Ok, let's go from the opposite direction, let's see about original thought. 

A simple question (not specifically you Gaspar, but the generic 'you' to all);  what would you have done about the big bank problems?  Let them go, or bail them out?

[azbadpuppy]

Love him or hate him, the man can give a speech.


I personally found it refreshing to hear at least a bit of humility and empathy, comparatively speaking anyway.

Something more substantial than a 5 second gratuitous blurb regarding the appeal of DADT would have been nice....but oh well, I guess us beggars can't be choosers.

Whether it is all just lip service will, of course, remain to be seen.

[FOTD]

I'm well-prepared.

But your image could use some shrink....

[FOTD]

His remark to SCROTUM was priceless.....

Did Samuel Alito 'mouth off' to Obama during speech?

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/alito-mouth-off-obama/


"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said Wednesday night.

Guido disagrees....he looks forward to foreign influences....

RIP HOWARD ZINN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bokworker]

And still no direct answer to a direct question - actually a couple of direct questions.  I realize that is part of the 'playbook', so I never expect one.  Lot's of dissemination and talking about anything else.  (It would be interesting to see what a "cogent thought" would be in Fox-land.)  And asking a direct question and expecting a direct question does appear to be a new idea here, as in so much of Tulsa and OKC.

Original thought, huh?  Ok, let's go from the opposite direction, let's see about original thought. 

A simple question (not specifically you Gaspar, but the generic 'you' to all);  what would you have done about the big bank problems?  Let them go, or bail them out?

H, I will take a stab at your question. The reality is there was no choice to do what was done. We got a taste of the kind of risk of letting the big banks fail when the Fed and Treasury allowed Lehman Brothers to fail. We saw an immediate, and near total, shutdown of the flow of funds in our financial system. Keep in mind, any company, even an insovent one, can operate as long as they have access to liquidity. But every business, even solvent ones, go out of business immediately if they lose access to liquidity. Hence we had to make sure access to liquidity was there.

Those that state that they would have allowed the banks to fail do not grasp the direct and immediate impact this would have had on every single person with any exposure to the financial system. And that would include anyone that had a checking account or worked for a business that interacted with the financial system... i.e. virtually everyone. Now, the question of what we do from here is a very valid question. Consider what has happened since the beginning of the financial crisis... perversely, we now have fewer financial institutions controlling an even larger percentage of deposits and assets than before the onset of the crisis. That means that systemic risk has been INCREASED not decreased. 


We do need to seperate the different business models that act as the capital formation process. The basic business of traditional banking is pretty boring. Take deposits at one price and lend it out at a higher price. manage the credit risk and to a lesser extent the interest rate risk and you have a profitable, if not fast growing, business. FDIC insurance works here so that depositiors can feel safe in providing funds to the banks to use for loans. The equity capital formation part of the process, handled by the investment bank like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanely, Merrill, and others, has always been more risky and cyclical. There is no way that we should extend FDIC insurance to this part of the process. Brokerage firms have been formed, blossomed, and failed forever and should be allowed to continue doing so but no investment bank should ever be allowed to become systemically important.

I started in the banking business when Paul Volker was the chairman of the Fed and agree with many of the ideas he has presented to the president. I wish Presisdent Obama's tone and tenor was not so populist or angry, and I wish some of our esteemed lawmakers would at least get a basic primer on the banking business beofre spouting off their ideas to the press, but the actions are neccasary. the deconglomeration process will take time and won't be painless. but each of us that has an intereat in the long term viability of our financial syatem should support the direction we are going.

Ultimately it matters not what was done during the dark days of the crisis...it matters a lot what we do from here.

[RecycleMichael]

I wasn't worried about Lehman Brothers. I heard one of them was being adopted by Angelina Jolie.

I just want the banks to keep lending.

[Gaspar]

Love him or hate him, the man can give a speech.


I personally found it refreshing to hear at least a bit of humility and empathy, comparatively speaking anyway.

Something more substantial than a 5 second gratuitous blurb regarding the appeal of DADT would have been nice....but oh well, I guess us beggars can't be choosers.

Whether it is all just lip service will, of course, remain to be seen.

That was the best speech he has ever given.  I was impressed.  He was very presidential, and very humble.  He showed more humility than he ever has in the past.  I admit he scored some points with me. It was more interesting and entertaining than any state of the union since Reagan. 

Did he say anything that shows a drive to create jobs and help the economy?
Yes, he added some tiny Reaganesque initiatives.
Yes, he promised to increase Nuclear power and domestic and off-shore drilling.
Yes, he promised tax cuts for small businesses, large businesses and capital gains.
Yes, he promised a temporary halt to the healthcare silliness.
Yes, he acknowledged that government does not have the ability to create jobs. . .finally!
Yes, he promised disclosure of pork on a website and open meetings . . .again.

What did he still fail to understand?
90% of the small businesses he promised tax cuts too operate as Sole Proprietorships or LLCs, and therefore will not be eligible for the cuts because they are taxed as individuals who make in excess of $250k.
His domestic power initiatives will never make it past Pelosi.
His capital gains initiatives will never make it past Pelosi.
We already know he has no intension of providing open meetings and disclosure of pork.
He talked about reducing the deficit again, but gave no clear initiatives to do so.
He's still angry at the banks and Wall Street without acknowledging  that Wall Street includes anyone with a 401K and banks include anyone with a bank account, home mortgage or car loan.

What are his obstacles?
He structured this speech as evidence of an "Reboot" not a strong position to be in.
He is not changing his path towards growing government.
His beautiful, eloquent words are now beginning to ring hollow with even his own supporters.
He just ticked off the supreme court.
He took credit for the troop surge in Afghanistan that was not his idea (same tactic backfired on Clinton).
Not enough focus on domestic security. Oops!  is not enough for us.