Quantcast

Comments about ‘Why the State of the Union is a waste of time’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 29 2014 4:04 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
worf
Mcallen, TX

It's become a pep rally with no substance. Words with no explanation.

Some questions not addressed in this speech:

* how are we reducing the debt?
* what about keeping your plan, and doctor. Why have people loss coverage?
* why are we sending military weapons to Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.
* how much money have we already spent on infrastructure, and education, and why do we need more?
* how was the stimulus package spent, and where are the shovel ready jobs it was to produce.
* why has the number of people on food stamps doubled?
* why, when so many people are poor, don't you vacation at camp David rather than Hawaii? Isn't that part of the inequality gap?

When seven trillions have been added to the debt, why are leaders applauding the commander?

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

...a waste of time if Barack is speaking

TMR
Los Angeles, CA

With all due respect, the article is a waste of time. Is such a shock that a state of the union speech is going to be ornamental rather than substantive? It is one of the rare occasions when all three branches of government come together for a ritual. Rituals may seem trite, but they also serve a useful purpose: they symbolize, they foster unity, and they remind us why we have a union.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

So? Don't watcht.
It's a Free Country, and it is not being forced to be broadcast or viewed by the public.

BUT --
It IS a Constitutional requirement for him to address Congress on that date.

So,
regardless of how you feel or it's content --
Please stop trampling the Constitution.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

I think the constitutional requirements could be met with a written report, not very long, and a list of recommendations to congress. All of the theatrics of the speech are unnecessary. This process could happen several times a year. From time to time, as it says in the constitution. President reports to congress; congress does what it does with the report and recommendations. Congress remains accountable to voters who can help members offer their skills to the marketplace if necessary. It's gotten skewed away from the original intent, I think.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Those pesky framers, they put something in the Constitution requiring the event.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

All the mindless applause, and partisan jabbing... it's a waste of time.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

LDS Liberal and others

But, it is not required for the President to go to Capital Hill and speak. He can, as others have done, merely submit a written report to them. That would fulfill the requirement. However you are correct about not watching it. The last time I watched one was when George H.W. Bush was President. No Clinton (I had no respect for him) No Bush (I didn't like him not being honest about the Iraq war), and certainly no Obama. He is such a phony person and bad President he makes me long for Bill Clinton. I didn't think that was possible.

Brent T. Aurora CO
Aurora, CO

In any case, as to the necessity and value of the State of the Union speech, was struck by the contrast between this event and the Super Bowl. Not to compare their importance, but the football game is watched by significantly more people -- in fact this year's blow-out game was the most watched thing on television ever.

How interesting that the four television networks, in conjunction with the NFL, have worked out a deal where on a rotating basis ONLY ONE NETWORK broadcasts this each year. Frustrated that this "show" (Obama flapping his gums) of absolutely no interest to me (especially live) pre-empted my favorite night of television. Accordingly we just turned the television off and did something else.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments