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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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?
@GaryO 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.
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.
Still waiting for answers on the IRS targeting of political groups and the death
offour U.S. citizens in Benghazi from the most transparent administration
GaryO,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.
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.RedShirt,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.
"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
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.
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 .
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.
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
I'm against Executive Orders period, no matter who issues them. Very few
have been good and most have been unlawful.
Hutterite"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.
Eastcoastmember. 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.
He might as well. Congress is obstructionist and not useful.
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)
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.
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.
Give all citizens a checkbook, and mandate banks to honor all checks coming
through.Problem solved!Obama-nomics make fixes the
@ 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.
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?Anybody?Reagonomics/Trickle Down Economics/Supply Side Economics
does not work.
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.
I have to admit....I didn't watch the State of the Union. I already know
the state of our union.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
His remarks about income inequality are an admission of his own failure as
president. After five years in office, he owns it.
"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?
@ 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.
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.
@VST: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.
Those who bypass congress are called dictators. Hillary wont be elected because
Obama is going to be in for life.
I thought it was a fantastic speech very well delivered with policy specifics.
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.
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.
Flex power and abuse power (while claiming to be a victim) are not synonyms -
except in Obamaland
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.
Felt the time would be better spent watching star gate SG1.
All in all... fairly good speech.
And this was the guy who ran on the promise of reducing partisanship?
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