Obama's 2010 State of the Union - Analyzed

MASTERBAKER

DEMOTED MOD
BGOL Investor
Cato Scholars Analyze the 2010 State of the Union Address

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/d39_1264708295"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/d39_1264708295" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>
Cato Institute scholars address several items in President Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address. Scholars include Daniel J. Mitchell, Mark A. Calabria, Neal McCluskey, Michael D. Tanner, John Samples, Jim Harper and Malou Innocent. http://www.cato.org
 
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...ctcheck_28nat.ART.State.Edition2.4bbf271.html

Comments *|*Recommended
Print
RSS

Yahoo! Buzz
Share
Obama's State of the Union: Fact check
12:00 AM CST on Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, who once considered government spending freezes a hatchet job, told Americans on Wednesday that it's now part of his solution to the exploding deficit. He didn't explain what had changed.

His State of the Union speech skipped over a variety of complex realities in laying out a "common-sense" call to action.

A look at some of his statements and how they compare with the facts:


OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit – and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one, saying that a freeze is "using a hatchet where you need a scalpel."

OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said: "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage – the majority of Americans under age 65 – in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee that people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors.

OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission. ... The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward ..."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted – a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress.

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign – to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations.

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn't absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.
 
Re: State of the Union- AP Fact Check

I'll take this minor bullshit against this mountian of debt and murder left by Bushco any day of the week.

-VG
 
Re: State of the Union- AP Fact Check

I'll take this minor bullshit against this mountian of debt and murder left by Bushco any day of the week.

-VG


Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters` table.

I'll excuse you I know not use to demanding your seat at the dinner table of life.
You'll settle for anything. Demand more, stop waiting for the governent to save you.
 
Re: State of the Union- AP Fact Check

Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters` table.

I'll excuse you I know not use to demanding your seat at the dinner table of life.
You'll settle for anything. Demand more, stop waiting for the governent to save you.

Go back to the cut and paste. Writing complete thoughts without assistance isn't for you. :smh:

-VG
 
Re: State of the Union- AP Fact Check

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...ctcheck_28nat.ART.State.Edition2.4bbf271.html

Comments *|*Recommended
Print
RSS

Yahoo! Buzz
Share
Obama's State of the Union: Fact check
12:00 AM CST on Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, who once considered government spending freezes a hatchet job, told Americans on Wednesday that it's now part of his solution to the exploding deficit. He didn't explain what had changed.

His State of the Union speech skipped over a variety of complex realities in laying out a "common-sense" call to action.

A look at some of his statements and how they compare with the facts:


OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit – and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one, saying that a freeze is "using a hatchet where you need a scalpel."

Agreed, the only way to make a significant dent in the deficit is to cut the two fastest growing causes. The Military budget and the Bush tax cuts. When Clinton left office, the budget was balanced and the deficit was on its way downward. When Bush left office, he grew the largest in history.

OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said: "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage – the majority of Americans under age 65 – in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee that people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors.

Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors.

When GW created Medicare Part D, where were you and your type? In fact your type claim to hates socialism, now you are decrying any so called changes in Medicare. This just highlights the ridiculousness of your sides thinking.

The only real health plan is a single pay option. All of the deals the ConservaDems and corporatist have cause the intent of the plan to be hijacked. This is what republicans like, the status quo.


OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission. ... The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward ..."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted – a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress..

Exactly, which displays the weakness of your criticisms of Obama? He is trying to make change happen. The congress is the problem. They bitch about problems, but don't want to act. GOP, party of no! (And the Blue Dog Dems and ConservaDems)

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign – to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations..

I am with you on this. This was one of the reasons I voted for him. A disappointment for me. However he did make public and posted most White House visitor logs, even the logs that GW keep from the public. You know the GW status quo you are fine with.

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn't absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

He hasn’t gone far enough. But has done more than GW who was own by lobbyists. Are there any republicans against lobbyists?
 
Re: State of the Union- AP Fact Check

do you really want to know?

Besides Paul. Of course he railed against the Fed, but when it was time to vote on it he flamed out. Talk is cheap.

So you are back after your epiphany of capitalism/corporatism. Don’t worry, I was sad when I found out there was no Santa Clause as a child!

:lol:
 
Re: State of the Union- AP Fact Check

Besides Paul. Of course he railed against the Fed, but when it was time to vote on it he flamed out. Talk is cheap.

you know that aint correct, the Dems added the Audit the Fed bill with some other Dem BS bill. He voted against it not to compromise the principle. HR 1207 should stand alone, it had broad bi-partisan support! And it would pass, handily, much to Pelosi's & Obama's dismay. AND YOU KNOW IT.Dem leadership is shady.

So you are back after your epiphany of capitalism/corporatism. Don’t worry, I was sad when I found out there was no Santa Clause as a child!

:lol:

I saw no reason in responding because you obviously don't recognize any difference between capitalism & corporate cronyism!
 
Re: State of the Union- AP Fact Check

Those "FACTS" are very slanted and only focus on negative aspects of each topic listed. For that 1 negative, there are multiple positives that can be mentioned.

And how the hell is "this committee is really a weak substitute of what (I believe) he really wants..." a "FACT"?????

As far as that C-SPAN Negotiation issue... Its obvious that wasnt going to happen for the simple fact both parties have to agree on being filmed and broadcasted on National Television. No way in hell the CEO of some insurance or drug company is gonna agree to that! Might as well not have any negotiations, cause all youre gonna get in those situations are BS discussions to avoid any PR damage...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top