Were you impressed by it?
What did you like about it?
What didn’t you like about it?
What could he have done better?
If passed as is, do you think his plan will make a positive/negative difference?
I’ll add my comments later…
The Millennial Star
Were you impressed by it?
What did you like about it?
What didn’t you like about it?
What could he have done better?
If passed as is, do you think his plan will make a positive/negative difference?
I’ll add my comments later…
No
Great rhetoric
Rhetoric
Be real
Negative – weighs too heavily on infrastructure
No.
It was kept short to limit grumbling from football fans.
His delivery is condescending, deeply partisan, petulant, and woefully short on specifics (“pass this bill!” itself is a farce, since he hasn’t *given* them a bill); his speech’s assurances have not held up well under the fact checks I’ve seen so far (Cal Woodward @ AP). He’s lecturing, and predictably; he’s not leading.
He could have delayed the speech until this so-urgent plan was ready to hand out. Or, better, quietly hammered out the details of an agreement before the start of the speech, and announced it as a done deal. THAT would have been worthy of the joint session, and a genuine surprise.
The details of his plan are not in a form that can be passed as-is. As the CBO once said of an earlier Obama plan, “I can’t score a speech.”
He is the commander in chief of the U.S. military and the chief executor of our laws, not our employer in chief. It’s frankly not his job to worry about my job, so I couldn’t care less what he has to say about it.
The speech was an embarrassment, a rehashing of years of liberal pieties signifying absolutely nothing. Creating jobs is the easiest thing in the world in this country, where we have the rule of law and an entrepeneurial culture: get government out of the way.
If this man gets a second term, I will move to Canada. No joke.
With as horrendous of a record this pretender has, any Republican should be able to can his action in 2012. If they can’t, it means the moochers outnumber the producers.
If I wasn’t LDS I would have started a drinking game everytime Obama speaks.
A drink for higher taxes. An extra drink if defends it as “paying your fair share”.
A drink for “investments” and two if it about roads and bridges.
A drink for some kind of focus grouped phrase like “balanced approach” or “pass this bill”.
A drink everytime he pretends that he is the one nobly and unselfishly doing whats good for the country if only those other selfish partisans could jump on baord.
A drink for every new word for stimulus and taxes. In this case “explosion” and “increased revenue”. (I know there is technically a difference between raising taxes and raising revenue but it still doesn’t make the phrase any less banal coming from Obama.)
Needless to say I would have been totally wasted by the end of last night’s speech. But being wasted would have been an improvement over listening. 🙂
It was a re-run of all of his other speeches. His ideas do not work, we know that. Keynesian theory is only good at failing. It is not the job of the US Government to make jobs. Just get out of the way and let people make the jobs and live their lives. And what money is going to pay for this bill? Seriously, what money? Recently I’ve been seeing Obama 2012 stickers on cars and I really wonder how people can still support him? He is a total and complete failure of a president.
Having just started a new job that involves getting up at 6 am, I’ve sleepwalked through last week. But, I feel for Obama and I just don’t see that he’s as evil as a lot of people seem to believe. I might even vote for him, depending on who runs against him. If its Obama vs Bachman, I’ll try to vote for him twice.
I think few on this list would consider him evil. I think he’s just not quite ready to be president. It does not fit his personality, nor his experience level. Modern presidents have to be in the fray with Congress, offering real bills, compromising, and acting presidential. He hasn’t handled the years very well, not because he’s a bad president, but he’s a good man who is over his head in very difficult times. And it doesn’t help that he’s picked czars and others with agendas to push. Example, EPA was ready to impose drastic changes, but he had to stop them at the last minute to prevent from devastating the economy. This shows that he is learning, but I’m not sure if he’s learning quickly enough, like Clinton after losing Congress. That he turned the stimulus and health care entirely over to Nancy Pelosi, and then only jumped in at a most inopportune time a year into the debate, shows that he needs to work on timing and leadership skills. As Maureen Dowd recently said, he cannot expect to give a speech, and then have all us minions just jump and do everything he asks.
Again, I do not think it is because he’s a bad person. He’s just overwhelmed by the huge task of 2+ wars, Great Recession, etc. Had he been president in the economic boon of the 1990s, many people would be happy with him, I think.
The really hilarious thing about the “moving to Canada” shtick is that Canada is so much more liberal than the U.S., even with Obama as president. They even have (gasp) socialist healthcare!
I guess the question is–where do conservatives move to when the U.S. becomes too liberal? Canada and Western Europe aren’t really options. Are any first-world countries more conservative than the U.S.? Maybe Singapore or somewhere else in Asia?