State of The Union

[joiei]

Our glorius leader the Honorable Senator Inhofe weighs in with his succinct thoughts   http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/inhofe-obama-lie/

[buckeye]

...and very humble.  He showed more humility than he ever has in the past.

Entirely unlike my impression, culminating in scolding the supreme court.  "With all due respect to separation of powers..."

a**hole.

[Gaspar]

Entirely unlike my impression, culminating in scolding the supreme court.  "With all due respect to separation of powers..."

a**hole.

I thought that was funny.  It illustrated the powers that each branch of government shares.  Through the past several administrations we have watched liberals push their power through the judicial branch.  If they can't legislate against it or tax it they make it illegal.  Now that the constitution has prevailed they are angry.  What could be funnier?

[rwarn17588]

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.

That is a well-reasoned, well-argued analysis of the speech. I don't agree with all your points, but concur with your general impression that it was a very good, if imperfect, speech.

[FOTD]

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.

Have seen and visited with 4 local bank execs this week and can only tell you their moods were glum....little loan activity due to their own internal strict guidelines hampering any aggressive lending. They'll loan but the requirements put the borrower on the ropes. No more rope a dope....

[azbadpuppy]

Entirely unlike my impression, culminating in scolding the supreme court.  "With all due respect to separation of powers..."

a**hole.

The SC needed to be scolded. What transpired last week was clearly the result of 'activist' judges hard at work. Good for Mr. President! IMO he needs to show more of that backbone.

[FOTD]

I thought that was funny.  It illustrated the powers that each branch of government shares.  Through the past several administrations we have watched liberals push their power through the judicial branch.  If they can't legislate against it or tax it they make it illegal.  Now that the constitution has prevailed they are angry.  What could be funnier?

stacked deck...

Satire: There Is A Disturbance In The Force
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/satire-there-is-a-disturbance-in-the-force/

"So. Let's review. Phucctards favor corporate personhood, but the Sith Emperor does not*. In the whole State of the Union address, this was his most dramatic moment of seeming to be almost –- Jedi. Phucctards are clearly the more virulent faction of Sith, but the collision at hand might cause some Jedi discomfort and embarrassment, because since when do Jedi root for the Sith Emperor?"

The Republicans' Sit-Down Strikes During The SOTU
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/republicans-sit-down-strikes-during-s

"Nice to see where small business, education and oligarchy play into the GOP's values, isn't it?"

[guido911]

The SC needed to be scolded. What transpired last week was clearly the result of 'activist' judges hard at work. Good for Mr. President! IMO he needs to show more of that backbone.

Obama is flat wrong. It's a damnable shame that people base their opinions on what others have said and never bother to do any research--and this includes our president/constitutional scholar. Obama stated last night:

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

Of course Obama either ignored or never bother reading the text of the opinion and merely perpetuated a BS meme. The majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission found unconstitutional 2 U.S.C. sec. 441(b) only, a section entitled "Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations".  The Court left completely undisturbed Section 441e, which in its entirety prescribes:

§ 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8.

2 U.S.C. sec. 441(e)[Emphasis added]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/usc_sec_02_00000441---e000-.html

The prohibitions in this section cannot be any clearer. Justice Alito mouthing "not true" is absolutely correct and Obama looks stupid.

[FOTD]

Double posting of this only further illustrates how unsure you appear on this issue.


Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain unanswered

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/01/27/corporation-files-to-run-for-congress-important-marketing-strategy-questions-remain-unanswered/

"The Supreme Court has decreed that corporations are persons and money is speech, so it was only a matter of time before a company decided to exercise its Constitutional right to run for Congress.

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it is filing to run for U.S. Congress. "Until now," Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, "corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves." Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first "corporate person" to exercise its constitutional right to run for office.

"The strength of America," Murray Hill Inc. said, "is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America's great corporations. We're saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?" Murray Hill Inc. added: "It's our democracy. We bought it, we paid for it, and we're going to keep it." Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an "emerging new market."

The announcement represents a landmark moment in American politics, as former President George W. Bush's dream of an "ownership society" is finally realized. Still, important questions remain for the candidate. For instance:

How will Murray Hill go about modernizing the nation's antiquated system of "elections." Surely there's a more efficient way of generating broad consensus, and citizens shareholders will be looking to emerging politicorporate leaders to quickly craft best-of-breed solutions to maximize return and lower total cost of ownership going forward.
Is it safe to assume that under-performing sectors of the country will be spun off or sold? (Specifically, it's anticipated that Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina and Texas will come in for much-needed scrutiny.)
What role will outsourcing play in bureaucratic reform? Certainly business units like Health & Human Services and Interior could be managed more cost-effectively in Bangalore.
Opposition to corporate/government merger and acquisition activity remains and buy-in will be needed from significant segments of the marketplace. However, Murray Hill has so far presented no marketecture for how it will capture sufficient mindshare to ensure the campaign's success.
What strategies will be employed to insulate United States of America, Inc. against hostile takeovers by international competitors?
What does the company see as its key differentiators with respect to competitors in the crowded "governance" space?
It's still early in the game, of course, but investors will be anxiously awaiting as Murray Hill's brand group crafts a mission statement and works to socialize its unique value proposition among key stakeholders."

Guido, do you think there is an age limitation?

[guido911]

You still here aox? I figured after your foreign governments/nationals contributing to campaigns had been completely discredited (or more bluntly you got your a$$ kicked again) with black letter statutory law would have caused you to tuck tail and run from here out of sheer embarrassment or public humiliation. This goes for others that pushed that BS who never took it upon themselves to do any research and instead looked to sites like crooks and liars and think progress. You have been exposed once again as a mindless follower thoroughly incapable of stopping himself from lapping up liberal pap. 

[FOTD]

You still here aox? I figured after your foreign governments/nationals contributing to campaigns had been completely discredited (or more bluntly you got your a$$ kicked again) with black letter statutory law would have caused you to tuck tail and run from here out of sheer embarrassment or public humiliation. This goes for others that pushed that BS who never took it upon themselves to do any research and instead looked to sites like crooks and liars and think progress. You have been exposed once again as a mindless follower thoroughly incapable of stopping himself from lapping up liberal pap. 

Nope. Lots of places FOTD gets his schtuff.

Amazing how you think taking a radical judicial activist stance makes you right. In reality, time will show us ads on tee vee directly paid for by corporations supporting candidates (with the volume turned up like those Big Pharma ads). You still have failed to address the reality of this outcome. You are stiff and rigid with regard to the interpretation handed down by an extremist majority without regard to practicality.

"At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause). " 1/26/10 POTUS OBAMA

[we vs us]

Obama is flat wrong. It's a damnable shame that people base their opinions on what others have said and never bother to do any research--and this includes our president/constitutional scholar. Obama stated last night:

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

Of course Obama either ignored or never bother reading the text of the opinion and merely perpetuated a BS meme. The majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission found unconstitutional 2 U.S.C. sec. 441(b) only, a section entitled "Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations".  The Court left completely undisturbed Section 441e, which in its entirety prescribes:

§ 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8.

2 U.S.C. sec. 441(e)[Emphasis added]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/usc_sec_02_00000441---e000-.html

The prohibitions in this section cannot be any clearer. Justice Alito mouthing "not true" is absolutely correct and Obama looks stupid.

I have a question for you then.  Even if the Supreme Court only explicitly addressed another part of the federal code, wouldn't their ruling still pertain to this section of the law if a corporation was involved? 

Doesn't their ruling supercede any prior law, whether it's state or federal?

[guido911]

Nope. Lots of places FOTD gets his schtuff.

Amazing how you think taking a radical judicial activist stance makes you right. In reality, time will show us ads on tee vee directly paid for by corporations supporting candidates (with the volume turned up like those Big Pharma ads). You still have failed to address the reality of this outcome. You are stiff and rigid with regard to the interpretation handed down by an extremist majority without regard to practicality.

Since when is free speech for all and being against censorship "radical". Meh. Your attempted pivot from foreigners donating to campaigns to attacking "big pharma" is epic FAIL.

[Conan71]

"At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a (projected) budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause). " 1/26/10 POTUS OBAMA

Just who is going to preside over those projected deficits for the next decade?  I know who is presiding over four out of ten of them.

[FOTD]

Since when is free speech for all and being against censorship "radical". Meh. Your attempted pivot from foreigners donating to campaigns to attacking "big pharma" is epic FAIL.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/john_roberts_the_difference_fo.php

" The head of the nation's judicial branch was purposefully deceptive during his "umpire" testimony. Or he had no idea what his words meant. Or he has had a complete change of philosophy and temperament while in his mid-50s. Those are the logical possibilities. None of them is too encouraging about the basic soundness of our governing institutions."

Think they'll censor a gay couples right to marriage? You betcha.