State of the Union
 

Seriously, if Mitch Daniels response is the best the GOP has they're doomed.

Obama's address was pretty good.

Did Mitch actually say that the rich should not get Medicare. He is a Republican right?

Biggest thing I heard was "send me the Bill, I'll sign it."
Ya, and then we the taxpayer will pay for it.

Nothing new here, more and more Govt programs leading to more
control and larger Govt.

:yawn: :sleeps:

Same old crap...raise taxes.

Taxes will go up...it doesn't matter who's President.

-spence

I'm with him:

http://i.imgur.com/CoPOk.png

That's why its the same old crap.

So right now, what are the alternatives?
What specifically should he have said that would have made you happy?

LOL JD, glad I took a second look. :D

John Stossel's opinion of what he should have said:

Has Barack Obama learned nothing in three years? Last night, during his State of the Union address, he promised "a blueprint for an economy." But economies are crushed by blueprints. An economy is really nothing more than people participating in an unfathomably complex spontaneous network of exchanges aimed at improving their material circumstances. It can't even be diagrammed, much less planned. And any attempt at it will come to grief.

Politicians like Obama believe they are the best judges of how we should conduct our lives. Of course a word like "blueprint" would occur to the president. He, like most who want his job, aspires to be the architect of a new society.

But we who love our lives and our freedom say: No, thanks. We need no social architect. We need liberty under law. That's it.

Obama -- and most Republicans are no different -- doesn't understand the real liberal revolution that transformed civilization. The crux of that revolution is that law should define general visible rules of just conduct, applicable to all, with no eye to particular outcomes. In other words, as Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek taught, the only "purpose" of law is to enable us all to pursue our individual purposes in peace.

If Obama really wanted, as he says, a society in which "everybody gets a fair shot," he would work to shrink government so that the sphere of freedom could expand. Instead, he expands government and raises taxes on wealthier people, as though giving politicians more money were a way to make society better. Instead, the interventionist state rigs the game on behalf of special interests.

What should Obama have said in his speech? Here's what I wish he'd said:

Our debt has passed $15 trillion. It will reach Greek levels in just 10 years.

But if we make reasonable cuts to what government spends, our economy can grow us out of our debt. Cutting doesn't just make economic sense, it is also the moral thing to do. Government is best which governs least.

We'll start by closing the Department of Education, which saves $100 billion a year. It's insane to take money from states only to launder it through Washington and then return it to states.

Next, we'll close the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That saves $41 billion. We had plenty of housing in America before a department was created.

Then we eliminate the Commerce Department: $9 billion. A government that can't count votes accurately should not try to negotiate trade. We will eliminate all corporate welfare and all subsidies. That means agriculture subsidies, green energy subsidies, ethanol subsidies and so on. None of it is needed.

I propose selling Amtrak. Why is government in the transportation business? Let private companies compete to run the trains.

And we must finally stop one of the biggest assaults on freedom and our pocketbook: the war on drugs. I used drugs. It's immoral to imprison people who do what I did and now laugh about.

Still, all these cuts combined will only dent our deficit. We must cut Medicare, Social Security and the military.

I know. Medicare and Social Security are popular. But they are unsustainable. The only way to cut costs and still have medical innovation is to free the market. So I propose that we repeal Obamacare immediately. My proposal was a mistake. We should repeal all government interference in the medical and insurance industries, including licensing. It all impedes competition.

We must shrink the military's mission to true national defense. That means pulling our troops out of Germany, Japan, Italy and dozens of other countries. America cannot and should not try to police the world.

Those cuts will put America on the road to solvency. But that's not enough. We also need economic growth.

Our growth has stalled because millions of pages of regulations make businesses too fearful to invest. Entrepreneurs don't know what the rules -- or taxes -- will be tomorrow.

All destructive laws must go. I endorse the Stossel Rule: For every new law passed, we must repeal two old ones.

OK, Obama will never say that.

I would go along with almost all your thinking except the above.
Taking drugs infringes on other's freedoms as addicts commit crime to feed their habit and cost the taxpayer $$ to police and bring the offenders to trial.
How about the cost of DWI, the lives of 10,000 people lost last year.

While you could remove the jail charges for non violent users or law abiding users, you would need to strengthen the law against all sellers with a penalty of life in prison, no holds barred, for control.


If someone wants to go into a closet and take drugs, be my guest.
But don't infringe on my freedoms for life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness as some addict or recreational user steals, kills or injures a member of my family.

There is a big different between Pot and most other drugs.
Even if legal, DWI, is still DWI... Beer is legal, but you obviously can still get DUI...

I actually asked for personal opinions, not John Stossel... Can you find out what Hugh Downs thought as well?

As far as things Stossel mentioned... ,

Amtrak, sure.
Medicare? Changes needed, not removing it entirely.
SS. half of what I read suggests it isn't as insolvent as made to be seen.
Military? Isn't that what was just proposed (cuts w/o losing national security?)
Commerce dept... :

From Wikipedia... take it for what it's worth....
On January 13, 2012, President Obama announced his intentions to ask the United States Congress power to close the department and replace it with a new cabinet-level agency focused on trade and exports. The new agency would include the Office of the United States Trade Representative, currently part of the Executive Office of the President, as well as the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the United States Trade and Development Agency, and the Small Business Administration, which are all currently independent agencies. T

The Obama administration projects that the reorganization would save $3 billion and will help the administration's goal of doubling U.S. exports in five years.[4] The new agency would be organized around four "pillars": a technology and innovation office including the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the National Institute of Standards and Technology; a statistical division including the United States Census Bureau and other data-collection agencies currently in the Commerce Department, and also the Bureau of Labor Statistics which would be transferred from the Department of Labor; a trade and investment policy office; and a small business development office. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be transferred from the Department of Commerce into the Department of the Interior.[5] The reorganization was part of a larger proposal which would grant the President the authority to propose mergers of federal agencies, which would then be subject to an up-or-down Congressional vote. This ability had existed from the Great Depression until the Reagan presidency, when Congress rescinded the authority.[6]

The Great Depression was one of those "Crises" that the Federal Gvt. took advantage of to expand its power. One of the means to expand that power was to create agencies that were mandated to do things which the Constitution did not grant the Central Govt. to do. Since then the number of these agencies has grown into the hundreds, some being quite large and powerful. The Federal Government rules to a great degree through these unelected administrative agencies. This has been the growth of the Administrative State at the expense of representative government. The EU has taken the administrative method to an even more expansive and dictatorial level. And it is in danger of collapse. That Obama wants to combine some agencies rather than eliminate them, does not diminish the growth of our Administrative State, it only centralizes that unelected administrative power even more than already exists. It doesn't diminish the power of such administration, it just puts more power in the hands of fewer people.

RIH, without me sounding condesending,ya I know the difference, I wasn't born
yesterday.
My point had nothing to do with wether it was pot, coke or whatever,
but the fact that taking drugs infringes on other's freedoms for the reasons I
mentioned. You missed the point.

Ah, WTF I'm a kid compared to you, condescend away :love:

And with respect to Booze/DUI, it infringes on others freedom and safety as well.

My point was I don't think Stossel was talking about Meth or Coke. You don't see a lot of people smoking pot who are doing the things you mentioned. ask Raven. But again, maybe we can find Hugh Down's response....

LOL, ya unfortunately you got the age thing right. :hihi:

Anyway, Stossel should have specified, I assume
a war on drugs is all illegal drugs.

glad you asked -

First, get off your asses, quit complaining and make a difference. You have the power, the knowledge and the resources to make things better. The "man"is not holding you down. You are holding you down. My job as president is to protect the country and ensure we have laws that preserve our freedoms. My job is not to find you a jobn not to fund your education or your retirement.
Our govt is too big, we tax you to push paper that authorizes more paper to be pushed. Its over, today. I dont have all the answers but I know we can do it. You can do it. Suck it up, work hard, lets move forward. I am tired of the crap in congress, tired of the media, tired of everyone talking. Lets get to work. Its starts today.
Thank you


- would have brought down the house and would have ENSURED his re-election

Just for fun, I googled Hugh Downs' response to the SOTU. Couldn't find one. Being 90 and concerned with his blood pressure might have given him the wisdom and health concerns not to listen to political drivel.

I'd vote for you....

its not much different than what FDR or Kennedy said - two dems.

Thanks for not giving a cut and paste answer.


as far as all that... find someone from either party willing to say that, excluding old kooks who believe in crazy foreign policy....

FDR said something like this? Really? He may have--he said many things in his various addresses and fireside chats, but he also did things that (as politicians do) that didn't match his rhetoric. On the other hand, he was quite blunt in saying some things that don't match your brief speech.

And he often did bring the house down and got re-elected 3 times by promising and doing quite the opposite of your speech. To a great extent, Obama is carrying on the FDR tradition.

If he was serious he would have protected our interest better:

Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland - ABC News

here is another one:

Obama-backed electric car battery-maker files for bankruptcy - The Hill's E2-Wire

another one puts it over a billion:

Solyndra - The New York Times


We need someone with real world business experience bottom line. who, that person is remains to be seen.

Instead of wasting time on things like Fast and Furious, Fighting Arizona's immigration laws, and his bull#^&#^&#^&#^& health plan he should have focused on stopping corporations from moving jobs over seas, getting people back to work, and a real solution to the mortgage mess that works. It's time this country closes it's borders and takes care of it's own for awhile.

:claps:

I was really just referring to his post WW2 language. He rallied the country to victory. I wasnt complimenting him on his policies.