Obama vows to flex presidential powers in State of the Union address

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Kate Hutch Kenmore, WA
    Jan. 31, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    If progressive policies were to blame for economic woes and progressives don't believe in working for pay...then why are red states receivers of the most help from the federal government? Look at which states collect the most welfare. Red, red, red.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Jan. 31, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    Article title: "Obama vows to flex presidential powers in State of the Union address"

    Translation: "Obama wants to be king of America"

    America, I weep for you....

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    Jan. 31, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    It is about time.
    The Right has played Obama from the start when McConnel said their #1 priority is to make sure the President has only one term. Wrong, Mitch and you severly damaged the American middle class.
    I think the ghost of LBJ has visited the President last Christmas, and its time to play hardball.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    To "Cougsndawgs" you may disagree that businesses will bring greater opportunity to the poor, and you are wrong for disagreeing with it.

    China is a great example. About 30 years ago they had a poverty rate that was over 80%. They now have a poverty rate that is similar to our poverty rate. They were able to reduce their poverty through bringing in big business and providing more opportunity for their people.

    Now, look at the US, why is it that the profitable companies are not hiring. If you ask their owners and CEOs, it is because of regulaion and uncertainty. Obama and his cronies have put up so many regulations that businesses are reluctant to expand and risk growth like they were in the past.

    Once you realize that historically, Capitalism has done more to bring people out of poverty than anything else, you will be able to see how it works. Until then, you will hate capitalists and the very people that have made your life better.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    To those saying big business will bring greater opportunity to the lower classes because of jobs, I humbly disagree. Right now we're seeing a boon in corporate income and the economy is growing stronger for these corporations. Yet we continue to see underemployment (low wages) for corporate employees and little to no pay "internships" on the rise. We know corporations are making more money now, yet the disparity between corporate executives and wage earners has never been wider. Trickle down economics only works when corporate leaders and the wealthy are willing (or forced by law in the form of minimum wage increases) to share more of the wealth with their employees. Capitalism will always favor those with ability or the right heritage, it doesn't always reward hard work and sacrifice as so many would like us to believe. If it did the poor single mom who has to work two jobs and sacrifice everything for her children would be rewarded more abundantly. I'm not saying socialism at it's polar opposite is good either. But we need to create laws that allow for more money and opportunities afforded to those lower in SES.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    To "GaryO" here is some simple evidence that liberal policies fail. For the past 13 years we have been operating under Progressive policies (Yes, Bush is a Progressive, just not a Democrat). During Bush's time the gap was widening slowly. However, since Obama took office, the average income has DECREASED by over $4000/yr.

    If that isn't enough for you, even the Huffington Post recognizes that under Obama that income inequalty has widened more than under Bush. See "Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush" in the Huffington Post. There are also more recent articles in the WSJ and other newspapers pointing out how income inequality is greater now than before.

    Is that enough evidence, or do you need more?

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:32 p.m.


    I blame Democrates for all harm done to this nation.

    Democrats Policies ARE to blame.

    According to Reagonomics, the act of making the rich even richer magically closes the income gap between the rich and the middle class because it creates jobs. Unlike the Middle Class now that is declining in percentage due to Obamanomics.

    The Constitution says that the president will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. We know that hasn't happened.

    Directly concentrating money into the hands of the already wealthy creates greater income possibilities for those who wish to provide for themselves. Income parity is not needed, that is the socialist and communist way.

    Why is that so hard for Democrates to comprehend?

    Let me see . . . what would be an appropriate metaphor?

    If I take dirt from a hole in the ground and add it to a already huge pile of dirt, the hole will not get any bigger, because the rich and business owners are able to provide jobs for those who wish to dig out of that hole, and allow them to start filling in that hole and have the dream of creating their own pile.

  • JT4 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    By the way, GaryO, the Microsoft site says they have 100,932 employees worldwide. Sounds like pretty good "trickle down" to me.

    Nobody said policies that foster business were perfect. But we have only to look at countries that have gone full bore in trying to take from the rich to level the playing field. Ultimately, everyone loses.

    I can even point to my own job with a national company. I make reasonable money. It's not great, but I'm really at the mercy of those higher up to determine what I will be paid since I'm not a revenue producer. I am not currently in the position to create much in the way of wealth on my own; if I were, I would. But even though I don't like some of the policies of management, nor the millions the guys at the top make, I can't deny that I'm doing better than I would otherwise because somebody else created a job. And, again, because I might be able to get some savings from my job, I might also be in the position later to take the leap and do something on my own.

  • Hugh G. Hater Swat Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    Still waiting for answers on the IRS targeting of political groups and the death of
    four U.S. citizens in Benghazi from the most transparent administration in history.

  • JT4 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    Reagonomics/Trickle Down Economics/Supply Side Economics does indeed work. Very simply, if I start a business, initially all the money goes to me. But, in short order, I will find that I am at the limit of what I can do on my own; my income plateaus. If I want to make more money, I must hire help. Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest men in the world, but he didn't do it all out of his garage, did he? He made increasingly more money as he expanded his business, but he had to hire increasingly more people to do so. Policies that restrict a person's ability to make money hurt the wealthy, certainly, but they hurt those at the bottom far more because the jobs they might otherwise apply for are not created--or, worse, lost. By the way, it is said that you have to have money to make money, and that's true. The person who can't get a job will likely never be in the position to take a chance on more to create more wealth later for himself and thus provide opportunities to yet more people.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    To "GaryO" you are wrong. It is the progressive policies of those on the left that have widened the gap between the rich and the poor. If you look at what has gone on over the past 40 years, when liberal policies have been implemented, the income gap has widened.


    You say that "when liberal policies have been implemented, the income gap has widened."

    How do you figure?

    Can you furnish even one cause-and-effect example that supports your claim? I kind of doubt it.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    "I honestly don't see how Democrats can blame Republicans with a straight face"

    Really O'Really? I don't crack a smile when I blame Republicans for the harm they have done this nation.

    Republican policies are easy to blame for one reason: Republican Policies ARE in fact to blame.

    According to Reagonomics, the act of making the rich even richer magically closes the income gap between the rich and the middle class.

    That makes absolutely no sense on its face. It is nonsensical and un-american. The Constitution says that government should promote and provide for the General Welfare, and not just provide for the welfare of the already wealthy.

    Directly concentrating money into the hands of the already wealthy in the naive hope that money might trickle down is ridiculous. It creates greater income disparity, not income parity.

    Why is that so hard for Republicans to comprehend?

    Let me see . . . what would be an appropriate metaphor?

    If I take dirt from a hole in the ground and add it to a already huge pile of dirt, it's not going to create a level playing field.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    To Brave Sir Robin- On this I agree with you!

    To Bungalow- Look at the headlines in the DN and you will see evidence of Republicans offering up solutions. This is not only in Utah and with elected officials from here (well there. I'm actually in Idaho right now). It's happening all over the country. Republicans are trying. But when the Senate won't give an inch, when the President harrumphs around that he won't ever sign anything the House proposes, how is anything supposed to get any better? Our president and his followers in the Senate are just as obstructionist as any Republican.

  • djk blue springs, MO
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    did most notice his visible anger and lies ? he was elected and is doing his best to tear down and destroy our Constitution. i didn't vote for him either time, i saw his evilness .

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:51 a.m.

    To "GaryO" you are wrong. It is the progressive policies of those on the left that have widened the gap between the rich and the poor. If you look at what has gone on over the past 40 years, when liberal policies have been implemented, the income gap has widened.

    If you want to close the gap, move away from collectivist ideas.

    You are wrong about trickle down economics. History has shown that when the markets are relatively free (not anarchy) that wealth does in fact trickle down from the rich to the poor. The House Joint Economic Comittee has a few studies out there that show that trickle down economics works.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    Please folks, please stop with the idea that Congress has not worked with Obama. If you say that, then you have to say that the Senate has refused to work with Congress as well. At the same time non of these have been flexible in working with the other. Both parties have bent a little bit on different issues. And both parties are standing firm on the issues they believe in.

    Right now, all of Washington is in an absolute mess. And in my opinion, once we get rid of Obama, it will all settle down and then we can have leaders who really want to help our country instead of drive it into an abyss of poverty and government control.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    I'm against Executive Orders period, no matter who issues them. Very few have been good and most have been unlawful.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:24 a.m.


    "He might as well. Congress is obstructionist and not useful."

    Congress is meant to be that way because it prevents tyranny. It's supposed to be hard to pass laws. If they wanted it to be easy to pass laws, the founders never would've established a congress. Obama is not a King even though he wants to be one.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:19 a.m.


    The president can't bypass congress whenever they feel like it. He's got to follow the rules or else he's a dictator. A dictatorship is totally inevitable in the United States so I won't be apologizing for anything. They will have to shoot me. But then again, I'm not even in the US anymore.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    He might as well. Congress is obstructionist and not useful.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    Who else played the count the dumb goals, stretched truths, impossible promises, and outright lies game? Bonus points for counting promises that will blatantly violate the constitution if fulfilled and "accomplishments" that already violate the Constitution! I counted quite a few of each of these! Good (bad) Speech, Barry!

  • justinbl Portland, OR
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    I find it very scary when a president wants to do whatever he can to get around Congress. We are a republic with three branches or government, not a monarchy.

    Sometimes when people feel like nothing is getting done, this is actually part of the beauty of a republic. Those parts of Congress that are stopping Obama are actually representing their districts and their state. Those people likely do not want a system where everybody is poor, which they feel Obama is pushing for. If they decide their representatives are not doing what they wish, they have the right to elect somebody else to represent them. With an elected Senate (for good or for bad) we even choose who represents our state as a whole.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    It isn't Obama that scares me, nor should he be what scares you. What scares me - and should scare you - is that he was democratically elected by millions who were duped by the allure of receiving something for nothing (as well as those who just blindly vote Democrat).

    Obama's going to serve his 8....nothing's going to stop that. But what should scare you is these same hoodwinked voters electing an Obama clone in 2016, thereby sentencing us to 8 more years of this.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    Give all citizens a checkbook, and mandate banks to honor all checks coming through.

    Problem solved!

    Obama-nomics make fixes the problem.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    @ Bungalow Republicans HAVE offered solution after solution that have been patently ignored by Congress and Mr. President. I challenge you to show even one example of how the president has reached over the aisle and listened to Republican offered ideas.

    @ Gary O No, Republican policies haven't created the gap. It's pandering to those who are too dependent to work or use their creativity to make a living that has created the gap. I honestly don't see how Democrats can blame Republicans with a straight face. Or how the President can't see how his ideas are failing time and time again.

    Change has got to start with the top leadership. And Obama doesn't want change. He just wants to be right whether he is or not.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    Republicans say they want to "close the gap" between the Rich and the poor. But it is Republican policies that created that huge gap.

    Reagonomics/Trickle Down Economics/Supply Side Economics does not work.

    Many of us have known that for years, but Republicans seem to be some very slow learners.

    The idea that loading up the rich with even more money in the hopes that significant wealth would find its way down to the middle and working class was, is, and always will be ludicrous.

    When has that worked? Was it working in pre-revolutionary France? No, that's why they had a revolution. Was it working in Russia in 1916? Is it working in the US? I don't think so.

    Where has it worked?


    Reagonomics/Trickle Down Economics/Supply Side Economics does not work.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    Increasing the min wage would only hurt the lower income folks, especially those on fixed incomes, as prices would rise and only the rich would benefit. Pres. should know this, its the perfect deceit, to pretend to care for the poor while you are pushing them further down.

  • where's the beef Provo, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    I have to admit....I didn't watch the State of the Union. I already know the state of our union.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    Wow! I didn't know:

    * we've cut the deficit in half
    * that over eight million jobs were created in the past five years
    * people were getting affordable health insurance coverage even with pre-existing conditions.

    I've misjudge our commander in chief.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    I voted for Obama and Romney both; so I may be objective in saying a 5 minute speech is all we needed: tell people to pray, have faith, read Bible, dance, write, learn math, enjoy art, read poetry, marry before having children, spend less than you earn, and early to bed and early to rise and when in doubt, stay close to your church and family and community.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    The theme of taking care of business was remarkably free of a strident tone. The best State of the Union address we've heard in quite some time.

  • LiberalEastCoastMember Parkesburg, PA
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    Anti Bush-Obama who called Obama a dictator and said "Hillary won't be elected because Obama is going to be in for life."

    You do realize that guys like you who are sure our best days are behind us have a dismal track record of predicting what this President will or won't do, don't you?

    Please promise me you'll come on this forum and issue an apology and say you were wrong when none of what you predict comes true.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    Yes, Mr President; why not just do away with Congress; it would free up monies to further fund your programs. Just disband Congress by Executive Order. Maybe the military would support you. Hail Caesar!

  • CPA Howard Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    When did we elect a king? The last time the constitution was still the rules that govern the country. The president is charged with puting into place the laws congress passes, not rewriting or ignoring the law. He wanted the affordable health care act, it was passed by a congress controlled by his party, so he was able to have the law written the way he wanted. Now that reality has set in and he sees his law is a train wreck, he rewrites the law.
    Yes the republicans have tried to block his way, but they are in the majority in the house and a majority of americans voted them in, remember congressional districs are determined by population and not geography, unless you live in North Dakota.

    Partisan politics has been here from the begining, if you don't believe me check out the presidental election of 1800 between Jefferson and Adams. Our system was designed with checks and balances and this is one of the balances.

  • ute alumni SLC, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    talk is cheap as we have seen over the last 5 years. barry continues to be clueless.. and to think we have 3 more years of this guy. awful.

  • BeSmart Cheyenne, WY
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    The executive branch has way over stepped its bounds.
    Anyone know what the first executive action was?
    The Louisiana Purchase which Jefferson thought was essential for the defense of the nation.
    Executive orders for wages is a gross over use of power, as are most executive orders in this day and age. Just like the one he signed to make it easier for background checks be performed on US citizens.
    By the way for the people who blame republicans which party has said they are not willing to negotiate (hint: its not the republicans).
    The two party system is meant to make congress negotiate. Obama has failed as a leader in almost every way.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    His remarks about income inequality are an admission of his own failure as president. After five years in office, he owns it.

  • EPJ Grantsville, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    "President Barack Obama vowed Tuesday night in his State of the Union address to sidestep Congress whenever and wherever necessary". Our Founding Fathers established three branches of government to prevent this. Pardon my naiveté, but isn't this vow in direct contradiction to the vow Mr. Obama took to uphold the Constitution?

  • SC2SU St George, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:56 a.m.

    @ Riverofsun - I'm not sure what speech you watched. It just goes to show you that you can see what you want. The speech was dry and full of the same ole rhetoric. After 5 years in office, Obama continues to disappoint.

  • l.cee Ridgefield, WA
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:36 a.m.

    Let's face it. If you didn't like Obama before the speech, you likely didn't like his speech. And if you did like him already, you probably liked what he said. Therefore, let the bashing and praising begin in this comment section. It will be no different than any other article's comment section on political subjects.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:35 a.m.


    So many members of the GOP complain President Obama is trying to go around Congress by using Executive Orders, but the most recent President to use fewer Executive Orders was Grover Cleveland.

    As for only raising the minimum wage on "future" contracts, President Obama cannot change salaries or budget on current contracts because they have already been implemented. Ensuring future contracts require a better minimum wage is a small step, yes, but it is him doing what he is able to do, and not, as the GOP claims, trying to subvert Congress.

    In addition, I heard the President urge that governors go ahead and govern at the local level and raise the minimum wage in their respective states, which is exactly what the GOP claims is best---smaller government.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    Those who bypass congress are called dictators. Hillary wont be elected because Obama is going to be in for life.

  • ingleschmingle Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:42 a.m.

    I thought it was a fantastic speech very well delivered with policy specifics.

  • Reflectere Utah, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:10 a.m.

    Ugh - what a horrible plan. Interest rates on treasury bonds are at a historical all time low in recent years. If you invest in treasury bonds now, expect a very low yield, unless the Federal Reserve changes rates policies in order to support the president's proposal. This much is apparent between this proposal and the continued push for that crashed and burning healthcare system: Obama - you have no clue.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:53 p.m.

    The widening gap between rich and poor has been exasperated during Obama's terms in office. Who is to blame? Republicans? But Congress hasn't gotten anything done, Obama says. So it can't be Republicans.

    Obama's healthcare law has stymied economic growth. It has reduced full time employees to part time employees. It has slowed business investment in manufacturing, expansion, and hiring due to uncertainty. Obama's anemic economy (yep, you can't blame Bush forever) is directly attributable to his policies.

    He has no new ideas. He doesn't know how to make the economy strong. He has never ran a business, only a group discussion in the university, and in his community organizer role. He has been president for several years and 62% of Americans say we are headed in the wrong direction.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    Flex power and abuse power (while claiming to be a victim) are not synonyms - except in Obamaland

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:34 p.m.

    President Obama was elected by a majority. He has tried to work with the Congress, but the Congressional Republicans have chosen, since the night he was elected in 2008, to make sure nothing he promoted would ever come to pass.
    Tonight the President's speech was a great one, as always.
    He did not rant about uncooperative Republicans, but again, tried to give our nation hope for a better future.
    And....... much to the disappointment of Republicans, Barack Obama is neither quitting his office, or going away.

  • evansrichdm west jordan , UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:32 p.m.

    Felt the time would be better spent watching star gate SG1.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    All in all... fairly good speech.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:08 p.m.

    And this was the guy who ran on the promise of reducing partisanship?

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:06 p.m.

    Barack would be perfectly happy if everyone was poor and equal. Its a sign of laziness and refusal to accept responsibility when people blame the rich for their situations.