Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
In light of the all the hoopla about President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, I have been thinking of all of the ideas and issues that I would like the President to address in his talk with the country. Since I am a Bears fan and used to dreaming, here it goes.
The first issue that I would like to hear President Obama discuss on Tuesday is the Economy. I don’t mean just “jump starting” the economy. I want to hear about the plans to reach full employment. I am not suggesting that the unemployment rate should be zero, but if we are not shooting for that, how will we get the unemployment rate down to an “acceptable” number? I want the President to tell me that he will be starting government jobs programs to assist cities and states with their infrastructure. I am talking about WPA type programs to give every willing worker a job. Whether it is rebuilding and renovating our National Parks and National Monuments, or helping out in State parks and recreation areas; the result is the same. Having jobs that pay people to actually help our country and get paychecks to people who will spur the economy as a whole.
The next issue that I would like the President to talk about is one that will probably be very contentious. I want him to challenge the Congress, on national TV to reintroduce the Assault Weapons Ban to control some of our deadliest weapons. That would include restricting the size of the magazines or clips that could be used on semi-automatic weapons. I would also want to hear that the gun show loop-hole must be “fixed” and made part of the legislation. This will create a firestorm from the Right and from the Left, but if he really wants to help save lives, this is a good first step.
When I read in the papers and on this blog that the Republicans and some Democrats want to repeal and/or defund “Obama care”, my blood just boils. To that end, President Obama needs to outline every single benefit of the health care reform legislation that will die or not be initiated if the legislation is repealed or starved to death financially. When the public hears what the Insurance industry funded Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats want everyday Americans to lose or do without, Americans everywhere will “inform” the Republicans and the Democrats just what is important to them. Since I am dreaming here, I would also want the President to challenge any legislator who votes to repeal or defund the legislation to give up their government-funded health insurance. If you don’t want Americans to have insurance coverage, you shouldn’t take any coverage from the government. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Finally, the President should reaffirm his vow to end any and all torture by our military and intelligence authorities. The President could reignite his base by going one step further to say that he will be instructing Attorney General Holder to investigate any past instances of torture during the Bush Administration including the actors and the officials who authorized it. It will be a bombshell, but justice deserves this kind of bombshell. If he really has grown a set, he could also mention Pvt. Manning by name and vow to end his solitary confinement and treat him like any other person who has only been charged of a crime.
Now that I have gone out on a limb to give you several of the items on my State of the Union wish list, it is time for you to go out on that limb and tell us what you want the President to discuss on Tuesday evening. It will be interesting to see if the President actually discusses any of our items. This will give us something to talk about after the Bears beat the Packers today!
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
Elaine M.: “rafflaw, I’ve been trying to decide whether or not to watch President Obama deliver the State of the Union Address. Talk is cheap–and actions certainly do …”
—
You have to approach it like the Oscars, watch for the flubs and fools; after last year who knows what might happen and who will make a fool of themselves.
*************
Blouise: “Alito could always send his weeping wife as a stand-in … or sit-in … just give her lots of tissues.”
—
Holy S###! Alito is married to John Boehner? !!! I had no idea.
🙂
NY Magazine: Obama Never Had Any Contact With Half a Dozen Top Cabinet Members in First Two Years
However Whitehouse logs show plenty of contact with Andy Stern SEIU and George Soros
” a half ah dozen never received a phone call in the first two years or up until that point which is a pretty dramatic thing that not only does it tell you the president wasn’t listening to people outside the administration he wasn’t even listening to senior members of the administration”
rafflaw:
You wrote:
“There is no evidence that they are dangerous Muslims entering the country now. It might surprise you to know that the Obama Administration has deported far more aliens during its first two years than the Bush regime. Why didn’t you ask Bush to stop “inviting” Muslims into the country? Finally, if Christians are involved in domestic terrorism, shouldn’t all Christians be prevented from entering the country under your wild theory? Wasn’t Jared Loughner a Christian just to name the latest.”
***If there are no dangerous Muslims entering the USA why are people getting sexual molested at US airports by government officials?
***How much left-wing media crap about deportation are you willing to consume? Are you this easily bamboozled by the leftist media?
Let me correct your misinformation:
“Reality check: most of the rise in criminal deportations is attributable to the “Secure Communities” program, a Bush initiative inherited by Mr. Obama. While ICE takes full credit for expanding the program, the real impetus comes from state and local governments. They are sick and tired of footing the bill for holding illegal aliens in their lock ups…
…But “Non-criminal” deportations fell to 142,100 in the first nine months of FY2010, from 188,000 in the same period last year—a 24% decline. This category includes illegals busted in workplace raids or identified by those employer audits that ICE claims are a more effective way to enforce immigration laws in the workplace.”
You read that right: a 24% DECLINE in noncriminal deportations. Only the deportation rate of criminal aliens has increased, but that category is much smaller compared to the category of noncriminal aliens and cannot overcome the overall DECLINE in deportations since 2007.
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/100809_nd.htm
Do they even let Christians into America today?
I don’t think so. It’s part of the WASP genocide policy of the US government.
We have always banned whole segments of populations from these United States. Even not during wartime.
http://web.missouri.edu/~brente/immigr.htm
In your dreams or hallucinations, Jared is a Christian.
Christians have no policy of Jihad, Muslims do. Christ was not the commander of a military, Mohammad was. And Christ didn’t have sex with a nine year old. Mohammad did. Which probably goes a long way to explain why Democrats like Muslims so much.
And, Mr. Know-It-All, contrary to your assumptions, I BEGGED BUSH TO DEPORT THE INVADING BARBARIANS.
From Huffington Post (1/23/2011)
Fatal Triangles
By Robert Kuttner
Co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/fatal-triangles_b_812816.html
In the wake of the Tucson shootings, President Obama has launched his latest version of post-partisanship. It seems to be serving him well. His approval ratings are up, Republicans have slightly toned down the rhetoric, and the President is in his favorite stance as the man who bridges differences.
Obama has gestured right by appointing centrists to top positions and embracing a pro-business rhetoric decrying regulatory excess, but also appeased the Democratic base by wisely rejecting calls to put Social Security on the chopping block. Based on his video to supporters, he will call both for deficit reduction in the long term but increased anti-recession spending now, knowing that Republicans won’t give him a nickel.
All this will help position him to win re-election in 2012. Having frothing-at-the-mouth Republicans control the House may well be better for Obama than having to deal with a frustrated Democratic Congressional majority.
If you liked Bill Clinton as Triangulator, you will love the era of Triangulation II. The danger, of course, is that the man at the apex of the triangle fares better than his party.
He is now Mr. Reasonable Centrist — except that in substance there is no reasonable center to be had.
A well funded and tightly organized right wing has been pulling American politics to the right for three decades now. And with a few instructive exceptions, Democrats who respond by calling for a new centrism are just acting as the right’s enablers.
What exactly is the beneficial substance of this centrism? Just how far right do we have to go for Republicans to cut any kind of deal? Isn’t the mirage of a Third Way a series of moving targets — where every compromise begets a further compromise?
Democrats once played this game well, in reverse. In the period when Democrats dominated and set the national agenda, it was Republicans who moved to the center.
Eisenhower (who was seriously considered as a possible Democratic presidential candidate) accepted the New Deal, and launched large new spending programs like the interstate highway system. Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual income law, sponsored a national health program slightly to the left of Obama’s, and signed one bill after another expanding health, safety and environmental regulation. Democrats defined the center.
But for at least two decades, Republican themes — privatize, deregulate, shrink government, cut taxes, liberate business — have been ascendant, while life for regular people has become more precarious, and too many Democrats have embraced Republican-lite.
If you look back over the past several administrations, in most bipartisan compromises it was usually the Democrats who got rolled. The last major policy compromise where the right gave serious ground was the Social Security rescue of 1983.
The 1986 tax reform was supposed to cut rates and close loopholes, but at the end of the day the tax code became less progressive and the business elite went right on inventing new loopholes. If President Obama proposes another tax reform in this spirit, watch out.
The 1996 welfare reform, a bipartisan compromise so punitive that three of Clinton’s sub-cabinet experts resigned in protest, cut the welfare rolls, but inflicted huge hardship on poor people. As long as there was full employment, the damage was disguised. With unemployment in excess of nine percent, the massive hole in the safety net stands revealed.
**********
This is how Kuttner ends his article:
Based on early reports, the President’s State of the Union Address will be better than some progressives feared. They can take some credit for warning him off Social Security cuts. And good for Obama for calling for more public investment and letting Republicans jeer, revealing the emptiness of the Republican recovery program.
When he finishes, Rep. Paul Ryan, chair of the House Budget Committee, will give the Republican response. Let’s hope we don’t feel that someone should get equal time to give a Democratic response.
But I strayed from the topic. What’s my wish for the State of the Union? I want some honesty. That’s all. I don’t want him to give lip service to an idea he has no real intention of backing all the way, a la public option. I want him to say exactly what his plans are and then do his utmost to carry them out, even if they aren’t things I’d particularly like. Can he do it?
Elaine: I voted for McGovern in my first election. I suppose I am about the same. It seems the country has moved to the right though.
Slart,
I’ll answer your questions, but first you should give an honest, no personal attack response to mine. So again, I’ll ask you straight up:
How should we compromise on 1. Torture and 2. extrajudicial killing of Americans without Congressional or Judicial review?
Please be specific on what compromises the American people should make on these issues.
Swarthmore mom,
I’m one old white voter who isn’t trending to the right. I’ve actually become more liberal/progressive as I’ve gotten older. That’s one reason why I’ve been disappointed in Obama.
Jill,
To consider the Democrats to have been in control of the Senate for two years is naive – we’ll see if the Democrats do anything about the unprecedented use of the filibuster since 2006.
You’re right. I forgot about the whole compassionate conservative thing. That went out the window after 9-11, and then he revealed his true colors.
I focused only on the corporatist side of Obama. Jill did a good job with the international criminal and his truly frightening decree that he is entitled to kill anyone, anywhere at any time if he deems it necessary.. Oh, well, maybe not inside the US. We’ll see.
earsoftheworld: I disagree. Bush claimed to be a “compassionate conservative”. He was anything but that. It was a total con that Rove pulled to gain the advantage over Gore. Bush did “pretend to be otherwise”.
Swarthmore Mom,
I can understand the hesitancy to believe what he says. Like alot of us on here, we are still going to hold any politicians feet to the fire if they do not keep their promises.
Elaine,
I do remember trickle down economics, but none of has trickled down to me yet!
Jill,
Would you rather have the prosecution of torturers or your job?
What action do you advocate and how will that lead to the prosecution of torturers?
How will it effect the other issues that we are facing?
Or is your goal just to be sanctimonious? If so, well done! 😉
Elaine: Cutting Social Security would be political suicide for Obama. He won’t do that. He already has an age gap problem.. His support is much higher among younger voters. Older white voters are trending republican.
I think what Jill is getting at, and what others have said, is that this president is a complete corporatist who has kept very few of his campaign promises, so it’s the definition of insanity to expect better results from the State of The Union. When Obama voted for the warrantless wiretapping bill, I convinced myself that it was a one-time thing. Boy, was I wrong! When it comes to actions, Obama has sided with the corporations every time. I was expecting someone who spoke out for the little guy and used his bully pulpit to inspire the people to fight for their own interests, and when popular and corporate interests conflicted, to use his office to go to bat for the people. After all, we’re the ones who elected him, right? I got a yes-man who talks a good game but capitulates completely to his corporate masters when push comes to shove. A guy who decries back room dealings but goes on to make a huge one with big pharma, and instructs his message machine to do its best to cover it up.
With Bush, we knew what we were getting. Yes, he was a liar. Yes, he was a corporatist. Yes, he was a criminal. But he didn’t pretend to be otherwise.
As good ‘ol George Carlin said, “That’s why we re-elected Clinton. Dole tried to be different, he said, “I’m an honest man!” Bull shit. People don’t believe that shit. Then Clinton said, “Hi, I’m full of shit, and how do you like that?” And the people said, “at least he’s honest. At least he’s honest about being full of shit.”” Ah, George, we miss ya. If any of you have his albums, take a listen to 1988’s What am I Doing in New Jersey. I cringed at how similar our situation is, 20 years later. We didn’t learn then, will we learn now?
Swarthmore mom,
“Obama won’t back reducing Social Security or raising the retirement age.”
He wasn’t going to allow the continuation of tax cuts for the wealthy. He compromised himself on that issue–as he has on a number of other issues. Gitmo hasn’t closed yet. I really don’t know when I can believe what he says anymore.
*****
rafflaw,
“Reagan is one of the reasons why the middle class is struggling today.”
You’re right!!! Remember trickle down economics?
Slart
How should we compromise on 1. Torture and 2. extrajudicial killing of Americans without Congressional or Judicial review?
Please be specific on what compromises the American people should make on these issues.
Raff,
I agree about going after torturers, I just think that Jill’s position makes her incapable of the compromise necessary for any sort of progress (on torture or any other issue).
Here’s how I ended my post, I hope all the other links will come through. If you’re good with all this then what can I say, vote Obama, vote Democratic. If you’re not, then stand up and fight back.
Remember also I can say, what if Nader had become president? We’d be out of the wars, have a functioning economy, moving towards alternative energy and mass transportation, the bankers would be in jail along with the Bushies, we’d not be torturing etc. So, if we are dreaming about what ifs, there’s no reason not to recognize Nader would have been a much better president that Obama.
Democrats are corporatists and electing them will not “save” this nation. I truly recommend the film, “Inside Job” where it is clearly shown that both sides serve corporations, especially the financial industry.