Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton's army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

. . . the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent.

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag.

But I intend to fight obstruction with action . . .

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

Third, if you're an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you're a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.

Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid. We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.

The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.

After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.

Some technologies don't pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy.

Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We've got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world

Normally a President at the start of his fourth year would be running on his record, accentuating the legislation he's passed. Mr. Obama can't do that with any specificity because the economic recovery has been so weak and the legislation he has passed is so unpopular. So last night he took credit for the shale gas revolution he had nothing to do with and proposed new policies to "spread the wealth around," as he famously told Joe the Plumber in 2008 before he took the words back. We thought he meant it then, and now he's admitting it. . . .

In the Obama recovery, growth has never exceeded 4% in any quarter and fell off markedly in mid-2010 through the third quarter of 2011. For the first nine months of 2011, growth averaged less than 1.2%. The economy finally picked up again in the fourth quarter, but still at a rate that is subpar for a recovery that long ago should have become robust and durable.

As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama is trying to campaign as an incumbent who is striving to help the economy but has been stymied at every turn by Congress. Not even MSNBC can believe this. For two years he had the largest Democratic majorities in Congress since the 1970s and achieved nearly everything he wanted.

The New Yorker magazine this week has posted on its website a 57-page memo that economic adviser Larry Summers wrote to Mr. Obama in December 2008. It lays out nearly his entire agenda for the "stimulus," reviving housing, the auto bailout and saving the financial industry. If anything, the memo overstates what would be needed to stabilize the financial panic, but nearly all of the stimulus spending priorities that the memo deemed "feasible" made it into law. They simply didn't work as promised.

The Pelosi Congress also passed ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, cash for clunkers, the housing tax credit, and much more. The only Obama priority it didn't pass was cap-and-trade, which was killed by Senate Democrats.

Mr. Obama's regulators also currently have some 149 major rules underway, which are those that cost more than $100 million. The 112th Congress hasn't been able to kill a single major rule. The most it has been able to do is extend the Bush tax rates—which helped the economy by avoiding a tax shock—and slow the rate of increase in federal spending. This President has been "obstructed" less than anyone since LBJ.

President Barack Obama laid out an array of plans in his State of the Union speech as if his hands weren't so tied by political realities. There can be little more than wishful thinking behind his call to end oil industry subsidies - something he could not get through a Democratic Congress, much less today's divided Congress, much less in this election year.

And there was more recycling, in an even more forbidding climate than when the ideas were new: He pushed for an immigration overhaul that he couldn't get past Democrats, permanent college tuition tax credits that he asked for a year ago, and familiar discouragements for companies that move overseas.

A look at Obama's rhetoric Tuesday night and how it fits with the facts and political circumstances:

OBAMA: "We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."

THE FACTS: This is at least Obama's third run at stripping subsidies from the oil industry. Back when fellow Democrats formed the House and Senate majorities, he sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request. He called again to end such tax breaks in last year's State of the Union speech. And he's now doing it again, despite facing a wall of opposition from Republicans who want to spur domestic oil and gas production and oppose tax increases generally. . .

OBAMA, asking Congress to pay for construction projects: "Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home."

THE FACTS: The idea of taking war "savings" to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand. For one thing, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been largely financed through borrowing, so stopping the wars doesn't create a pool of ready cash, just less debt. And the savings appear to be based at least in part on inflated war spending estimates for future years.

OBAMA: "Through the power of our diplomacy a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program now stands as one."

THE FACTS: The world is still divided over how to deal with Iran's disputed nuclear program, and even over whether the nuclear program is a problem at all.

It is true that the U.S., Europe and other nations have agreed to apply the strictest economic sanctions yet on Iran later this year. But the global sanctions net has holes, because some of Iran's large oil trading partners won't go along. China, a major purchaser of Iran's crude, isn't part of the new sanctions and, together with Russia, stopped the United Nations from applying similarly tough penalties.

Once again Mr. Obama slighted the threat that the federal deficit poses to the growth he said he wants. As with last year’s State of the Union speech, when he relegated the debt to a near-aside late in the speech, Mr. Obama did not go beyond a rhetorical nod to the issue. Indeed, in arguing for increased investment in U.S. infrastructure — a worthy idea — Mr. Obama gave up on the traditional approach of paying with an increase in the gasoline tax or similar user fees. Instead, he relied on the dodge of “paying for” those costs by using some of the savings from winding down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration is right to be frustrated by congressional unwillingness to consider real pay-fors, but wrong to respond with a measure that would just make the deficit worse.

I am really, really tired of hearing about Warren Buffett’s secretary. She will be seated in the White House box tonight. It is time, as Glenn Reynolds wrote, to put up or shut up. If she is going to be made into a political figure, I want to see her tax returns for the last five years. If she agrees to produce them, I will offer a substantial wager that they do not show what her boss claims they do.

Doctor Fate wrote:It explains one thing: why he's so good at it. Repeat the same thing over and over again, you'll get more skilled at delivering it too.

Doctor Fate wrote:A snippet from another site that made me laugh:

I am really, really tired of hearing about Warren Buffett’s secretary. She will be seated in the White House box tonight. It is time, as Glenn Reynolds wrote, to put up or shut up. If she is going to be made into a political figure, I want to see her tax returns for the last five years. If she agrees to produce them, I will offer a substantial wager that they do not show what her boss claims they do.

I read somewhere she makes more than $150K a year. If true, I know a lot of secretaries who would love to have her tax problems.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.

We must wait for further details to learn how much more than $200,000 she earns. The tax tables tell us about average ranges. For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year, but that is pure speculation.

I have nothing against Debbie Bosanke earning a half million or even more. Buffet is a major player in the world economy. His secretary deserves good compensation. At her income, however, she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project.

I imagine that there are any number of secretaries who would want her job and her place in the Congress gallery for the President’s State of the Union address.

In his State of the Union speech, Barack Obama warned that America is becoming “a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by.” Predictably, Republicans accused him of perpetrating “class warfare” or stoking “the politics of envy.” Even the (allegedly liberal) mainstream media accused Obama of striking a “populist” tone. But Obama is correct to identify income- and wealth-inequality as the number one problem facing the United States, and perhaps even the global economy as well.

Income inequality in the United States now stands at its highest rate since the Great Depression. At Occupy protests and in activist circles, this fact usually is cast as a social justice issue, which is why too many conservatives snidely dismiss it. In fact, free market capitalists are the ones who should be most concerned about inequality. A mass market consumer economy cannot function when earners cluster at the poles: Poor people buy very little, and wealthy people spend only a small fraction of their income on retail goods and services. The income of America’s middle class — the people who fuel the retail economy — has been stagnant, in real terms, for three decades.

The big question isn’t whether this is a massive problem. It is. The big question is why so many American conservatives are in denial about it. The Republicans, in particular, are promoting many policies that would actually make the income and wealth gaps worse — such as “flat taxes,” and other schemes that effectively amount to permanent tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. Mitt Romney’s opponents have made a big deal about his background in “vulture capitalism,” and the 13.9% tax rate he paid on his 2010 income. Yet Newt Gingrich has proposed lowering America’s capital gains tax rate to … zero. Whom, exactly, is that supposed to benefit?
Behind these schemes is a species of magical thinking: Just lower taxes on rich people and they will invest in the economy, thereby creating millions of new jobs, and lifting America’s unemployed masses out of poverty. One hears endless variations on this from the GOP and from conservative pundits. But it’s bunk. In December, when Republicans were busy protesting a 1.9% tax increase on the top 500th of income earners, Republican Senator John Thune told the media: “It’s just intuitive that, you know, if you’re somebody who’s in business and you get hit with a tax increase, it’s going to be that much harder, I think, to make investments that are going to lead to job creation.” But when NPR asked Thune and his Republican congressional colleagues to find a single, real-life millionaire job creator who could back up this claim, they couldn’t find any. Which isn’t surprising: Journalists who went out and talked to the nation’s business owners heard exactly the opposite message: “It’s not in the top 20 things what we think about when we’re making a business hire,” said one business owner. It “didn’t even make it on the agenda.”

Why are Republicans and their supporters so out of touch with economic reality? The conventional explanation is class mobility: Americans, including poor Americans, refuse to soak the rich because they believe they’ll be rich one day, too. And there likely is some truth to this, despite the fact that economic mobility is now lower in the United States than it is in Canada and many European nations.

But I’d say an even better explanation is Americans’ pure, undiluted ignorance about how unequal their society has become.

In recent years, a Harvard business professor named Michael Norton has been surveying Americans about wealth distribution in America, comparing their perceptions with fact. The reality in the United States is that the richest fifth of the population controls about 85% of the country’s wealth (while the poorest fifth controls about 0%). But when Norton’s survey respondents were asked to state the share of wealth that they believed was controlled by the richest fifth of Americans, the number they came up with was closer to 60%. Even more tellingly, when Norton asked survey respondents what would be the ideal percentage of wealth that should be controlled by the richest fifth, the average figure reported was only 35% — a full fifty points below the 85% reality.

“The closer countries to what our respondents wanted [America to look like] are countries that are amusingly dissimilar to us, such as countries like Sweden,” Norton told an interviewer. “And I should say, the other thing that we found is not just that people think things should be fairer in some sense than they are, but that there’s wide agreement about that. So if we look at very rich people and very poor people, or if we look at Republicans and Democrats, all of these groups think that wealth should be more equally distributed when we asked them these questions than it actually is.”

Conservatives who blithely dismiss Obama’s oratory as class warfare may want to take a closer look not only at the alarming gap between between rich and poor, but also between the more equal nation Americans say they want, and the unsustainably polarized one they actually have.

National Post

danivon wrote:If it's fine for you to contunually bring up Obama and how beastly he is in threads about the Republican Nomination, why do you beat on RickyP for bringing up the Republicans and the perceptions of conservatives about the current economic situation and trend in the USA (or, perhaps the 'state' of the 'union'?) in a thread about the SOTU address?

it must be tough to keep up with the mental gymnastics...

Doctor Fate wrote:I want to make clear, these are my standards, my choices, my rules.

What I will not do:
1. I will not respond to anyone who is intentionally defamatory or dishonest, other than to say, in one way or another, “That strikes me as intentionally defamatory” or “That strikes me as intentionally dishonest,” or to ask clarifying questions in an attempt to sort out motive.
2. I will not post in any single sub-forum more than once a day.
3. I will not respond to repetitious arguments except to say “That is a repetition of a previous argument.”
4. I will not post in response to anyone here who I believe has engaged in smears. I will not engage with someone who has even dragged my professional life into a forum in which it had no bearing and then declined to even apologize for that. To me, whatever other (off-site) forums he/she may be invited to participate in with whatever luminaries, that person has intentionally and personally insulted me and voluntarily severed whatever ties are implied in a loose-knit community like this. I have blocked the posts of those whose primary mission seems to be non-constructive. That is, of course, subjective. However, I think if some of the names were changed, even those engaging in said behavior would come to recognize it.

What I will do:
1. Respond in non-defamatory and honest ways. To me, it is fine that not everyone agrees with me. What is not acceptable, however, is to be drawn into mud-slinging fights. I recognize it is my own fault for responding to these and descending into the mire. In my opinion, some have made a point of trying to start such things. I will not, nor will I respond.
2. Provide new information in my posts. If I’ve nothing to add, I won’t post. In particular, I will look for helpful links to buttress my contentions.
3. Try to take constructive criticism in stride. If it is indeed constructive, great! I have not arrived.
4. If you find me in violation of any of these and rightly point them out, I will simply apologize and seek forgiveness.
5. Forgive those who genuinely seek forgiveness.