Obama's speech

[Abrupt]

The hands of the President and any legislation he proposes is not going to make it through an obstructionist Congress which refuses to even consider--except for media sound bites--anything proposed. This is not how our government is supposed to function. We have jobless, homeless, hungry Americans in this great country for pete's sake. It is all about politics and not the well-being of our country. I wish he had just done this by executive order and got it started for the good of our country and let the rest of them rant and rave.
Besides--at least Obama is sane; do you really want to wake up and have Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry in the White House? Think about that for a moment.

Actually our government was intentionally designed to be combative with regards to passing new laws and regulations.  It was suppose to be difficult to pass bills, sort of a trial by fire where only the really good ones passed.  Congress makes the laws appropriate to the powers it has authority over and they have often abuse these powers under previous presidents as well as under Obama.  It would be far better for us if many of the laws they passed never made it.  The president has no authority to pass an executive order of the scope you suggest and can only issue executive orders for areas where he has power and even then they must follow the law.

Jobless, homeless, hungry Americans and such sad situations are forever tactics used by those in power to abuse the powers they posses and impose unfair burdens upon the rest of us.  The government cannot create jobs except to increase itself and this is not of the spirit of our Republic.  The only real way for the government to create jobs is to lift the burdens it places on us in the form of regulations.  The government has no authority to provide homes for the homeless.  Tragic as such situations are that is a responsibility of the charity of the people and the government has no right to impose moral responsibilities upon the masses -- and even if they did forced charity is not charity at all.  While the government may have some responsibility to make sure food is available to Americans they cannot justify increasing burdens upon us when they send more food to other countries than is require here.  The only time such burdens may be prudent is when, taking all foreign aid and applying it internally, such aid is insufficient.

I know my views may sound harsh to some but I assure you they are not.  Review the constitution and the bill of rights.  Read "The Federalist" if you dare and learn more about the intentions.  After doing that, consider how wealthy and how well off and free we would be if the government just did what it has authority to do.

[Annella]

The hands of the President and any legislation he proposes is not going to make it through an obstructionist Congress which refuses to even consider--except for media sound bites--anything proposed. This is not how our government is supposed to function. We have jobless, homeless, hungry Americans in this great country for pete's sake. It is all about politics and not the well-being of our country. I wish he had just done this by executive order and got it started for the good of our country and let the rest of them rant and rave.
Besides--at least Obama is sane; do you really want to wake up and have Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry in the White House? Think about that for a moment.

Actually our government was intentionally designed to be combative with regards to passing new laws and regulations.  It was suppose to be difficult to pass bills, sort of a trial by fire where only the really good ones passed.  Congress makes the laws appropriate to the powers it has authority over and they have often abuse these powers under previous presidents as well as under Obama.  It would be far better for us if many of the laws they passed never made it.  The president has no authority to pass an executive order of the scope you suggest and can only issue executive orders for areas where he has power and even then they must follow the law.

Jobless, homeless, hungry Americans and such sad situations are forever tactics used by those in power to abuse the powers they posses and impose unfair burdens upon the rest of us.  The government cannot create jobs except to increase itself and this is not of the spirit of our Republic.  The only real way for the government to create jobs is to lift the burdens it places on us in the form of regulations.  The government has no authority to provide homes for the homeless.  Tragic as such situations are that is a responsibility of the charity of the people and the government has no right to impose moral responsibilities upon the masses -- and even if they did forced charity is not charity at all.  While the government may have some responsibility to make sure food is available to Americans they cannot justify increasing burdens upon us when they send more food to other countries than is require here.  The only time such burdens may be prudent is when, taking all foreign aid and applying it internally, such aid is insufficient.

I know my views may sound harsh to some but I assure you they are not.  Review the constitution and the bill of rights.  Read "The Federalist" if you dare and learn more about the intentions.  After doing that, consider how wealthy and how well off and free we would be if the government just did what it has authority to do.

No, your views sound confusing and make no sense how you write them. Congress can pass all it wants, but it still lands on the President's desk for signing or veto. How do you think the Republicans dumb proposal to balance the budget every year got vetoed after the majority of Republicans voted for it and it passed? Obama said they could send it to his desk all they want, but he would not sign it. However, it was grandstanding on their part to put up a phony show that they were actually doing something during the "raise the debt ceiling" debates.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is government funds appropriated for housing (HUD), medical (Medicare), Utilities (HEAP), etc., for the poor, disabled and underprivileged. What to you think the "pet" entitlement programs the Democrats did not want cut were? You mention regulations in place that if removed, would create jobs? Just what regulations are you talking about?

Executive Order options to the President are varied and can be executed in times of turmoil, war (foreign or domestic), terrorist threats, etc. Research it yourself. The President has a lot of power, but does not often wield it because of the people and/or the scrutiny of Congress. I see how you are trying to make a plug for Obama like he's at the mercy of a Congress that is out to get him. Baloney!! The guy didn't even come up with a viable plan for the debt ceiling, and was, for the most part, absent at the proceedings. One time even leaving in a huff because he didn't like what was being discussed. Poor little baby

Can you tell me how he proposes paying for a jobs plan? His speech was fluff covered in lies and more deceit. The same he has been dishing out since he got in office.

[tigerscene]

 sounds good to me i think it whould work out for us that dont have jobs right

[margaret0524]

I agree with action.   Great speech, now follow through!

[animikokala]

Here's an idea:  no members of the House or the Senate, nor the president should be paid until the deficit is gone.  They're all rich anyways, it won't hurt them.  I was always under the impression that their job was to serve their country (rather like the military).  I don't see the troops who are giving their lives getting paid like these bozos in charge are.  All of them, Democrat or Republican, should not be paid till they earn it, like everyone other working American in this country.

[Abrupt]

No, your views sound confusing and make no sense how you write them. Congress can pass all it wants, but it still lands on the President's desk for signing or veto. How do you think the Republicans dumb proposal to balance the budget every year got vetoed after the majority of Republicans voted for it and it passed? Obama said they could send it to his desk all they want, but he would not sign it. However, it was grandstanding on their part to put up a phony show that they were actually doing something during the "raise the debt ceiling" debates.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is government funds appropriated for housing (HUD), medical (Medicare), Utilities (HEAP), etc., for the poor, disabled and underprivileged. What to you think the "pet" entitlement programs the Democrats did not want cut were? You mention regulations in place that if removed, would create jobs? Just what regulations are you talking about?

Executive Order options to the President are varied and can be executed in times of turmoil, war (foreign or domestic), terrorist threats, etc. Research it yourself. The President has a lot of power, but does not often wield it because of the people and/or the scrutiny of Congress. I see how you are trying to make a plug for Obama like he's at the mercy of a Congress that is out to get him. Baloney!! The guy didn't even come up with a viable plan for the debt ceiling, and was, for the most part, absent at the proceedings. One time even leaving in a huff because he didn't like what was being discussed. Poor little baby

Can you tell me how he proposes paying for a jobs plan? His speech was fluff covered in lies and more deceit. The same he has been dishing out since he got in office.

First off I despise Obama and made no plug for him -- where did you get the idea contrary to that?  Were you in such a hurry to throw insults at me because you thought I was an Obama supporter because I spoke of the abuses of congress that you failed to realize I was speaking of the abuses of both?  It is rare that someone manages to anger me, but your belittling tone and insulting nature come close.  You could be correct though in regards to my previous post being confusing as it was written well past the time I am normally asleep and as a jab to the corruptions of government that has overreached its authority, and so I will dismiss your malignment to a case of misunderstanding.

These things you speak of, HUD, Medicare, HEAP are things I consider abusive government burdens and are not authorized by The Constitution but instead are classic cases of the "Camel's nose" metaphor.

As far as regulations I find burdensome to job creation, well there are many more than I know so I will list a few that come to mind.  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, many EPA regulations and especially new ones under Obama (mandatory reporting of “greenhouse gas” emissions and new automotive fuel economy standards to name two), regulations and charges to simply start a new business (not limited to federal government), the Dodd–Frank bill, etc.

The rest of your post I will leave to someone else to answer since I think Obama is so bad that he makes me miss Jimmy Carter (yeah I was around then and remember him well).

[Annella]

No, your views sound confusing and make no sense how you write them. Congress can pass all it wants, but it still lands on the President's desk for signing or veto. How do you think the Republicans dumb proposal to balance the budget every year got vetoed after the majority of Republicans voted for it and it passed? Obama said they could send it to his desk all they want, but he would not sign it. However, it was grandstanding on their part to put up a phony show that they were actually doing something during the "raise the debt ceiling" debates.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is government funds appropriated for housing (HUD), medical (Medicare), Utilities (HEAP), etc., for the poor, disabled and underprivileged. What to you think the "pet" entitlement programs the Democrats did not want cut were? You mention regulations in place that if removed, would create jobs? Just what regulations are you talking about?

Executive Order options to the President are varied and can be executed in times of turmoil, war (foreign or domestic), terrorist threats, etc. Research it yourself. The President has a lot of power, but does not often wield it because of the people and/or the scrutiny of Congress. I see how you are trying to make a plug for Obama like he's at the mercy of a Congress that is out to get him. Baloney!! The guy didn't even come up with a viable plan for the debt ceiling, and was, for the most part, absent at the proceedings. One time even leaving in a huff because he didn't like what was being discussed. Poor little baby

Can you tell me how he proposes paying for a jobs plan? His speech was fluff covered in lies and more deceit. The same he has been dishing out since he got in office.

First off I despise Obama and made no plug for him -- where did you get the idea contrary to that?  Were you in such a hurry to throw insults at me because you thought I was an Obama supporter because I spoke of the abuses of congress that you failed to realize I was speaking of the abuses of both?  It is rare that someone manages to anger me, but your belittling tone and insulting nature come close.  You could be correct though in regards to my previous post being confusing as it was written well past the time I am normally asleep and as a jab to the corruptions of government that has overreached its authority, and so I will dismiss your malignment to a case of misunderstanding.

These things you speak of, HUD, Medicare, HEAP are things I consider abusive government burdens and are not authorized by The Constitution but instead are classic cases of the "Camel's nose" metaphor.

As far as regulations I find burdensome to job creation, well there are many more than I know so I will list a few that come to mind.  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, many EPA regulations and especially new ones under Obama (mandatory reporting of “greenhouse gas” emissions and new automotive fuel economy standards to name two), regulations and charges to simply start a new business (not limited to federal government), the Dodd–Frank bill, etc.

The rest of your post I will leave to someone else to answer since I think Obama is so bad that he makes me miss Jimmy Carter (yeah I was around then and remember him well).

I was not in a hurry to throw insults but to say your posting was confusing. However, we both are off topic to the thread which asks what did we think about Obama's speech? As far as angering you, that is something you have the power to avoid. Don't own it.

News Flash:  It's a public forum open to people's opinions. Not everybody agrees on the same issues. That's why it's a forum. I don't mince words and pretty much call it as I see it. If that offends you then you need to develop a thicker skin if your going to debate, or offer an opinion.

The programs like HEAP, HUD, etc., are to help those less fortunate and I believe they are necessary. Why do we send millions of aid to other foreign countries when our own poor and needy go without? This is shameful for a Nation that is the richest in the world. We can't just kick our elderly and infirm to the curb just because they don't fit our parameters of contributing citizens. Pretty cold hearted.

I was around when Carter was in office also. It's funny how Iran released the hostages just before Reagan took office. To the very day in fact. Carter left them to rot for over a year. Reagan warned Iran during his campaign that if he was elected they pretty much better watch out. The American people were sick of Carter's do nothing attitude concerning getting them released. It cost him the Presidency for a second term. Sound familiar?

I've read a couple other posts that you have posted also and they make little sense. It sounds substantial with a lot of big words and mumbo jumbo, but you aren't actually saying anything to bring about a clear response. You can call me belittling and insulting, but that in itself is a form of retaliation because you don't know what your talking about.

[mlbevins]

I have to say it was one of his better speeches, considering I can't stand watching his speeches, but that was what it was a speech.  Nothing that he has spoke about has not helped our country at all.  I'm  just waiting on the part of the bill that will say, "and oh by the way your getting screwed again!"

[jwallbank]

Was this really worthy of a joint session of congress?  All this time and it still seems like amateur hour to me.  Selling hope to those in despair by reading a speech written by others off of a teleprompter does not inspire me in anyway.  At least it was civil this time with no blame thrown around and there were actually a few points that were the correct thing to do -- but that isn't enough for me at this late stage of the game. 

I agree, although he did threaten to bring it to the American people again! This is a stump speech for his election, it is just as he did in 2008, he will do in 2012. He has nothing!! This is just regurgitated 2009 stimulus, nothing was new in this except asking companies to hire Vets and give them a tax break. He bailed out the states in stimulus 1 for the tune of 300 B and most of the money went to save Fire/Police and Teachers jobs. This is more of the same waste of money!! And to keep the Unions happy!!