WASHINGTON — President Obama urged a divided Congress in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night to approve new policies to fix a slow-moving economy, overhaul the nation’s immigration system, and tighten gun laws.
Seeking to capitalize on momentum from his reelection, Obama built upon the liberal themes of last month’s inaugural address to call for changes that he said would benefit a struggling middle class, from improving educational opportunities, to rejuvenating the job market, to increasing the minimum wage.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
I'm so glad President Obama finally spoke forcefully about his willingness to act against climate change.
too bad it is fake
golf, I sometimes wonder if you have been hit in the head with someone's errant drive.
This comment has been removed.
Obama did not specify all of the costs to his plans during the speech, and White House aides declined to specify them ahead of time. But White House officials said that coupled with other cuts — and changes to the tax code that will increase government revenue — the president’s plans will reduce the deficit, not add to it.
“Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime,” Obama said. “It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth.”'''''WOW. Obama's statement when rated by the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" gets a rating of 5 (FIVE) Pinnochios!
Well, the Republicans can continue to beat up on Obama and America will suffer. Then the limping Tea Party can prop up Scott Brown's wife for prez in a few years and undo all improvements. I guess I see Obama as trying to drive our economy forward and the Republicans stealing the wheels off of the bus. This behavior from the Right should concern all of us. What does Eric Cantor and John "Red" Boehner have to worry about? Lifetime benefits are in place, regardless!
To fact check your post, no, the Washington Post did not give five pinnochios to President Obama's speech. "Here is a guide through some of President Obama’s more fact-challenged claims, in the order in which he made them. As is our practice with live events, we do not award Pinocchio rankings, which are reserved for complete columns." I read the column, and the author's points are questionable, to say the least.
For example, the author questions President Obama when he says “We buy … less foreign oil than we have in twenty [years].” The author says that this statement is factually true, then goes on to say that it was because of the poor economy, yadda yadda yadda. Whatever. This is fantasy fact checking, well, the President meant to say THIS and if he had said it, then THAT would be a lie.
I didn't catch the speech.
Did he say anything about detaining and deporting the illegals?
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Inspiring? Nah. Intelligent? Nah. Innovative? Nah. Just more of the same. Promises of change. Promises to do it against the will of the American people (who, remember , voted in a MAJORITY to the House.
i actually did not watch it, and instead popped in the movie 'Chicago', and really missed nothing. Just a huckster Chicago lawyer who was givin' them the ole razzed dazzle.
When will the 47% wake up and recognize the gravest they committed in November for the future of this country?
Although more GOP seats were taken in the house, this was in spite of the fact that overall, fewer votes wee cast for GOP house members than for Dems.
...not to mention House Districts are a joke at this point - in most states they have been so gerrymandered that relatively few House seats are actually in play each election cycle. Further, I'd argue that no one voted for a majority in the House. People voted for a single candidate in their district. Your statement would be more accurate if you said that the American people in a majority of House districts voted for Republicans.
As for the 47%...don't you mean the 47% who voted for Romney? OR did you mean the 51% who voted for Obama?
Good speech with a bit of a hammer. Grumpy Boehner needs to worry more about jobs and the limping economy instead of drawing lines in the sand. He could really be something other than angry and sunburned. Gee, remember when Ted Kennedy and Al Simpson joined forces to work together?
This comment has been removed.
More of the same after 5 years he has no answers, just campaign slogans.
This comment has been removed.
Trying to raise the middle class is an impossibility. Every time they get a raise, there’s a price increase that takes it away.Likwise, taking money from the rich reduces jobs. It is the wealthy, not government, that create jobs. The wealthy have investments (to create jobs) not cash. Taking the funds of the rich and giving it to the government only creates Pork and Welfare.
Thanks for checking in, Mitt.
Strong unions are the best way to raise the middle class. And strong progressive tax rates, like under our Republican President Eisenhower. If we had the unions and the tax rates from Eisenhower's day, our middle class would be strong and thriving.
Prior to Obama, the second term of President Bush featured the weakest gains in the gross domestic product in some time, with average annual real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth of just 1.9%. That's according to figures from the federal government's own Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
Obama's first term, however, puts the paltry level of growth during Bush's second term in a newly favorable light. According to the BEA, average annual real GDP growth during Obama's first term was a woeful 0.8%.
To put Obama's mind-bogglingly low number in perspective, consider this: It was less than half the tally achieved during Bush's second term. It was barely a quarter of the tally achieved under President Carter.
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/021213-644194-obama-growth-record-is-worst-in-60-years.htm#ixzz2KmvoBrme
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
The middle class are being taxed to the extreme, while the Republican-Democrat con game is played on the American people.
dougkinan@yahoo.com
Great orator: But, how did so many people vote for someone who has so little to offer?
Reminds me of the pedophile priests~can talk the talk, but not walk the walk.
Just playing to the media and his base. Taxing the rich is just a drop in the bucket of the money he needed for wealth distribution. The money will ultimately come from the middle class. It is class war fare but it really is not about the rich. they can leave the Country and even give up their US citizenship to escape the tax burden. It is against the middle class.
“Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime,” Obama said.
Wow, it won't INCREASE the deficit by a single dime. Nor does it REDUCE the deficit by a single dime. He's really got the " it's not my fault" generation snoodled on this one. Since we now by default pass the buck on anything at which we fail, it stands to reason we should literally pass the buck to the next generation in the form of massive deficits so they can just point the finger back at us. Amazing self-fulfilling prophecy.
This comment has been removed.
I never cease to be amazed at how stupid and out of touch the Republican Party is. Aall these Repubs now voicing outrage at the thought of a $9 minimum wage, while claiming that they are out to help the middle class. What a bunch of hapless right wing idiots.
You've obviously never run a business. Like most hapless democrats you're great at spending other people's money.
Out of touch? Try living someplace outside of the know-it-all Boston elite environs and see how out of touch so many libs are.
This comment has been removed.