PDA

View Full Version : How Great was Obama's Speech? A real poll



Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 12:06 PM
I thought it would be helpful to have a real poll

Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 12:15 PM
I know you hate Fox, but here is what they said about the auto bailout - I don't know that I disagree with what they said, though I don't think it should have been done even if President Bush (43) does get the credit for initiating it.




"On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

"THE FACTS: He left out some key details. The bailout of General Motors and Chrysler began under Republican President George W. Bush (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/george-bush.htm#r_src=ramp). Obama picked up the ball, earmarked more money, and finished the job. But Ford, which Obama mentions as well, never asked for a federal bailout and never got one. It's managed to get along on its own. Also, as part of its restructuring, Chrysler is not really a U.S. automaker anymore. Italian automaker Fiat now owns a 30 percent share, and it will eventually go to 51 percent under terms of the U.S. bailout and its bankruptcy restructuring.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/24/fact-check-obamas-2012-state-union/#ixzz1kUUZs8tF

ccmanuals
01-25-2012, 12:34 PM
Regarding Ford from FactCheck.org:
"A Ford TV ad slams competitors for accepting bailout funds, even though the company’s CEO lobbied for the bill. The company — the only one of the Big Three not to receive a bailout — feared a collapse of GM and Chrysler at the time would have hurt suppliers and, in turn, Ford itself. Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan R. Mulally also asked Congress for a “credit line” of up to $9 billion in case the economy worsened.
In other words, Ford was for government bailouts before it was against them.
Although Ford did not need money from the $80 billion bailout program, Ford did receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars, and the company lobbied for and benefited from the cash-for-clunkers program — contrary to the ad’s testimonial that Ford is “standing on their own.”

pefjr
01-25-2012, 12:51 PM
Was no SOU address, it was a campaign speech, and no doubt he won over all the usual gullible suspects that would vote for him anyway, even without any understandable reason. Sorta like the NPP. Why and what these followers see in this man as a leader is a mystery. They bash Bush but lay praise on top of praise on Obama walking in Bush's footsteps.

Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 12:52 PM
Regarding Ford from FactCheck.org:
"A Ford TV ad slams competitors for accepting bailout funds, even though the company’s CEO lobbied for the bill. The company — the only one of the Big Three not to receive a bailout — feared a collapse of GM and Chrysler at the time would have hurt suppliers and, in turn, Ford itself. Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan R. Mulally also asked Congress for a “credit line” of up to $9 billion in case the economy worsened.
In other words, Ford was for government bailouts before it was against them.
Although Ford did not need money from the $80 billion bailout program, Ford did receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars, and the company lobbied for and benefited from the cash-for-clunkers program — contrary to the ad’s testimonial that Ford is “standing on their own.”


Do you disagree that the bailout was initiated by President Bush (43), or that Ford accepted no bailout money? Or are you only upset because they once testified in favor of a bailout and then rejected it? As I recall, Senator Obama once called an unbalanced budget "unpatriotic" and yet he has not come close to submitting a balanced budget in 3 years as President.

ccmanuals
01-25-2012, 12:57 PM
Do you disagree that the bailout was initiated by President Bush (43), or that Ford accepted no bailout money? Or are you only upset because they once testified in favor of a bailout and then rejected it? As I recall, Senator Obama once called an unbalanced budget "unpatriotic" and yet he has not come close to submitting a balanced budget in 3 years as President.

This post was simply meant to say there is more to the Ford issue then the glip talking point. I haven't figure out what "initiatied" means with regards to Bush.

David W Pratt
01-25-2012, 01:19 PM
I did not watch it, but I noticed this morning that Yahoo had some issues with some of his facts and figures.

Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 01:22 PM
Clearly it wasn't liked by all.......


Two words hardly mentioned in Barack Obama’s 65-minute State of the Union address (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/us/politics/state-of-the-union-2012-transcript.html?ref=stateoftheunionmessageus) to Congress: freedom and liberty. President Obama’s fourth and possibly last State of the Union speech was long on big government proposals, but short on the principles that have made America the world’s greatest power. His lecturing tone exuded arrogance, and he failed to present a coherent vision for getting the United States back on its feet after three years of economic decline. It was heavy on class-war rhetoric, punitive taxation, and frequent references to the Left-wing mantra of “fairness”, hardly likely to instil confidence in a battered business community that is the lifeblood of the American economy.

Above all, he remains in denial over the levels of federal debt (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100131525/barack-obama-is-still-driving-america-towards-decline/#) that threaten the country's long-term prosperity. This was not a speech that was serious about the biggest budget deficits since World War Two. There was no sense at all that America is a superpower on a precipice, sinking in a sea of debt that threatens to undermine America’s power to project global leadership for generations to come. In fact, his interventionist proposals will only make matters worse.

From new federally funded infrastructure projects to increasing regulations on financial institutions (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100131525/barack-obama-is-still-driving-america-towards-decline/#), President Obama remains wedded to big government – an approach rejected by a clear majority of Americans, who view it as a millstone around their necks. As Gallup’s polling has found (http://www.gallup.com/poll/151490/fear-big-government-near-record-level.aspx), nearly two thirds of Americans see big government as "the biggest threat" to their country.

This should have been a serious speech addressing the economic problems facing the United States. Instead it was a laundry list of half-baked proposals designed to appease the Left. The president should have been talking about reining in spending, lowering taxes (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100131525/barack-obama-is-still-driving-america-towards-decline/#), and fostering greater economic freedom, but he opted for policies that will speed America’s decline, not reverse it.

LeeG
01-25-2012, 01:33 PM
We can re-post the speech and go line by line....

oh lord no!

Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 01:36 PM
That is a 100% subjective and partisan evaluation of the speech.

How about an objective one? Which parts of the speech, SPECIFICALLY, would you disagree with?

We can re-post the speech and go line by line....

Since when have you posted objective material? You brag that it is partisan, but that it is the ideas that matter. Or is it only permissible to C&P partisan material when Steve Benon writes it?

switters
01-25-2012, 01:37 PM
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

why didn't he just say fellow americans, does he not think that members of congress are american enough?

or does he think the VP and members of congress are better than just us regular old americans?

what makes a distinguished guest different? are distinguished guests union members? (oh lighten up):p

Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 01:39 PM
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

why didn't he just say fellow americans, does he not think that members of congress are american enough?

or does he think the VP and members of congress are better than just us regular old americans?

what makes a distinguished guest different? are distinguished guests union members? (oh lighten up):p

I see your point, but there is a decorum - Technically the speaker invites him to address congress - in reality it must have killed President Obama to acknowledge the speaker. I think that the formality is nice, even if I don't like the policies of the President

switters
01-25-2012, 01:40 PM
Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq.


Why didn't he welcome home all of them? Why doesn't he welcome home troops that come home from Afghanistan? (oh what? he did?, oh never mind, good job on that then)

Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 01:47 PM
It is precisely because I've been criticized for being partisan, that I suggested the idea of an objective evaluation of the speech. It seems that I get criticized for my partisan postings... and criticized for my objective ones, as well....

...or maybe you'd rather NOT try to be objective, yourself, about the speech. That's perfectly OK by me.

I gave an extensive, and objective, discussion of the overall issues you raised, in post #8.... a post without any extreme partisanship. It was in THAT spirit that I hoped you'd answer.


Perhaps if you were not so un-apologetic, you wouldn't look like such a hypocrite right now.

wardd
01-25-2012, 01:49 PM
toooo many choices

John of Phoenix
01-25-2012, 01:52 PM
Two words hardly mentioned in Barack Obama’s 65-minute State of the Union address to Congress: freedom and liberty. :mad: And not frikin' ONCE did he mention Mom or Apple Pie. :mad:

Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 02:04 PM
This post was simply meant to say there is more to the Ford issue then the glip talking point. I haven't figure out what "initiatied" means with regards to Bush.


By intitiated I mean.......



In September, 2008 the Big Three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_automobile_manufacturers) asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a 25$ billion loan.[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008–2010#cite_note-82) By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February.[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008–2010#cite_note-83) In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 [85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008–2010#cite_note-84) followed by General Motors a month later.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008–2010#cite_note-85)

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-25-2012, 02:24 PM
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

why didn't he just say fellow americans, does he not think that members of congress are american enough?

or does he think the VP and members of congress are better than just us regular old americans?

what makes a distinguished guest different? are distinguished guests union members? (oh lighten up):p

It's a polite formula rhat has been a tradition. Since you don't seem to care much about the niceties you needn 't say "thank you" for this update.

Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 02:24 PM
It's a polite formula rhat has been a tradition. Since you don't seem to care much about the niceties you needn 't say "thank you".

+ 1

John of Phoenix
01-25-2012, 02:24 PM
You reds bitch about the auto bailout because of the unions and bitch about TARP because it bailed out the tycoons and bankers. So far it's working out - the treasury is getting paid (sometimes ahead of schedule and projections) and the country is gradually recovering but you keep bitching about everything.

Why do you reds ache for a Depression and all the associated misery it brings? What's to be gained by it?

Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 02:26 PM
You reds bitch about the auto bailout because of the unions and bitch about TARP because it bailed out the tycoons and bankers. So far it's working out - the treasury is getting paid (sometimes ahead of schedule and projections) and the country is gradually recovering but you keep bitching about everything.

Why do you reds ache for a Depression and all the associated misery it brings? What's to be gained by it?


What's a red??????? I'm not a socialist:)

Bob Smalser
01-25-2012, 02:26 PM
What I love the most is the entire "Warren Buffett Rule" meme is based on a complete lie, and I can only wonder how long Obama will continue to get away with it. The lie is in misleading the public that Buffett's profits are being taxed only once, when in fact they are being taxed twice.

Buffet owns most of the Berkshire Hathaway Corporation. Hence while he only pays around 15% on long-term capital gains on the profits from his stock holdings, he's also paying up to 35% in corporate income tax on the same corporate profits that are paying those stock dividends. Hence his effective federal tax rate is closer to 50% than it is to 15%.

In turn, if Buffett's secretary is paying more than 15% of her gross income in federal income tax, she's getting horrible tax advice from Buffett, as most Americans of around $100k income are actually paying around 9% of their gross income in federal income tax....and those with real-estate heavy investments can end up paying as low as 6%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576627420875519978.html

Concordia 33
01-25-2012, 02:31 PM
That should be obvious: political power.

And yet on the extreme right is the corollary belief that President Obama is deconstructing the United States so he can build a Socialist country. I do not subscribe to this belief, I just think he is as incompetent as was President Bush (43)

Canoez
01-25-2012, 02:31 PM
I think you'll find people largely liked it. CBS poll here (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029581-503544.html).

Orange
01-25-2012, 02:37 PM
Well, I fell asleep during the event so can't comment on the quality of the speech. Did read though that last nights talk sounded similar to past presentations. Seems when putting together, the speech writer fell asleep also.

http://dougpowers.com/2012/01/25/the-state-of-the-union-re-run/

snippet:


Last night on Twitter I asked if the guy who loads Obama’s words into the teleprompter accidentally put one of his previous SOTU speeches. I think that was the case. Here are just a few examples (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/havent-we-heard_618462.html):

Obama 2010: “It’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.
Obama 2012: “Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.”
***
Obama 2010: “And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system.”
Obama 2011: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.”
Obama 2012: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.”
***
Obama 2010: “We face a deficit of trust.”
Obama 2012: “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . .”
***
Obama 2010: “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”
Obama 2012: “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign.”
We’ve seen that same show so many times the speech should have been broadcast on Nick at Night.
Video from the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/havent-we-heard_618462.html):

switters
01-25-2012, 02:49 PM
Thank you sir.

brucehallman
01-25-2012, 07:09 PM
Obama's core message was very very shrewd. The success of Ronald Reagan was his sunny optimism and pride. The people in the middle political ground want to feel good about our country, and will vote on that feeling. The core message of the Tea Party is that our country is broken and failed. That plays well with Tea Partiers, but not with the middle 1/3rd of the political constituency, who want to feel optimistic.

This is the passage that beams Obama's optimism, and is designed to be in stark contrast to the opposition. I expect that he will hammer home this theme, and the GOP doesn't have a 'sunny' message this time around, and will lose this battle.


The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.
Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years.

Glen Longino
01-25-2012, 07:26 PM
It was a good speech!
What were you expecting, Concordia 33, Sermon On The Mount?

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-25-2012, 08:04 PM
And yet on the extreme right is the corollary belief that President Obama is deconstructing the United States so he can build a Socialist country. I do not subscribe to this belief, I just think he is as incompetent as was President Bush (43)

You gotta' be a hater to compare anybody to President Bush. Be careful! Emotions that severe can ruin your health.

Chip-skiff
01-26-2012, 02:42 AM
He put me off at the start by saying that we all should behave like the military. Ours not to reason why, etc. And he ended on the same note.

RonW
01-26-2012, 03:06 AM
I voted the worse speech ever, it had no content and as pefjr said in post # 5, it was a campaign speech as to
why he should be re-elected. He has had 3 years and 2 of which he had both houses of congress.

Obama was handed a bad deal by bush and clinton who both screwed up royally. He also was handed a golden opportunity
to go down in history as a great president by fixing the mess he was handed, instead he has played politics
while rome is burning instead of manning the fire hoses and putting out the fire.
Hopefully he and a lot of others will be replaced come november..

RonW
01-26-2012, 03:40 AM
What does the rest of america think ?

Obama's first state of the union speech was watched by 52 million people.
His 2nd speech was watched by 48 million .
His 3rd speech was watched by 42 million.
His 4th and last speech was watched by 37 million viewers..

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/barack-obamas-state-of-the-union-ratings-continue-to-decline-down-12-from-2011/

Waddie
01-26-2012, 04:00 AM
Everyone knows it's the economy, stupid... this article is one of the best descriptions of what's happening to the world economy that I have ever read.

Read this article from the NY Times. Apple has been a poster child for American innovation, manufacturing domestically and touted as the future of American free enterprise.

If you have the answers to the problems described in the article you should be running for president. The speech will do nothing to stop the trends.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=apple&st=cse

regards,
Waddie

brucehallman
01-26-2012, 11:27 AM
He has had 3 years and 2 of which he had both houses of congress.

Obama was handed a bad deal by bush and clinton who both screwed up royally.

Ummm, have you been drinking the Kool Aid?

The Senate requires 60 votes, and the GOP controlled the 60 votes and aggressively blocked Obama.

And to merge GW Bush with Bill Clinton is laughable. The economy under Bill Clinton was spectacular. The GW Bush years took it into the toilet.

pipefitter
01-26-2012, 01:19 PM
Ummm, have you been drinking the Kool Aid?

The Senate requires 60 votes, and the GOP controlled the 60 votes and aggressively blocked Obama.

And to merge GW Bush with Bill Clinton is laughable. The economy under Bill Clinton was spectacular. The GW Bush years took it into the toilet.

That's rather narrow sighted and is proof that most Americans, as they will falsely blame or credit Obama for the state of the economy this time around, would give Bill Clinton credit for the 'spectacular' economy at the time. If you follow the trends that led up to the state of the economy during Bill Clinton's term, you will find that he actually had very little to do with the strength of the economy. In other words, it was more proof of how our economy typically cycles on it's own regardless of the sitting president. In all actuality, with long term considerations, a couple of Clinton's decisions were quite damaging as well.

If you look realistically at any presidents economic policies, negatively or otherwise, the effects typically lag well behind their initiation. If you are to credit a POTUS with such, you would have to give credit for the peak of the good economy during Clinton's term to Bush Sr., or even as far back as Reagan, and the negative economical downward trend during the first term of G.W. Bush to Clinton.

Bush's biggest 'economical' mistake was spending money on two wars that we were not going to have any time soon.

Bush may have 'inherited' a surplus, but he sure didn't inherit such with any sustainability. Clinton merely had some spending room for a time is all, and none of it was money that 'he' made happen.

Concordia 33
01-27-2012, 02:21 PM
You gotta' be a hater to compare anybody to President Bush. Be careful! Emotions that severe can ruin your health.

President Bush (43) and President Obama do have a little in common. Both had very little political experience prior to their presidencies, and is shows in how they governed. Both pandered to their extreme bases - President Bush to the religious right, and President Obama to the extreme liberal, and both have experienced resentment from their bases for being more centrist than they had hoped. Both seem to be bankrupting our country. Both were in a party that controlled the house and senate at the start of their presidencies, and both watched their party lose control. I don't think (and I know the President Obama lovers will spew hate for this statement) that either deserved to be elected into office and have very poor leadership styles.

I don't know that "emotions that severe" can ruin my health, but I don't want to fool myself into a false sense of bliss so that I can live a few extra stress free hours.

RonW
01-27-2012, 06:29 PM
Well it proved to be worse then even I thought it was..It seems as if after only 5 minutes 27%
turned it off.............

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/another-look-at-the-state-of-the-union-address-27-turned-away-after-first-5-minutes_b109019