Obama's Congressional Address (February 24, 2009)

[BurgundyNGold]

So, I watched the address by Obama:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-15753

1) Did a good job of explaining why the stimulus was important and preparing America for even more deficit spending.
2) Set forth for all to see the framework of his legacy: energy, health care and education with responsible spending (lol). Considering the guy has only been in office for 35 days, that's impressive -- especially when you take into account that his predecessor failed assemble and project such a cogent agenda in 8 years.
3) Showed excellent leadership and had a positive tone that is going to be *vital* in restoring consumer confidence.
4) Seemed conciliatory in his addressing of the Republicans, in general
5) Was ardent about cutting wasteful spending (yea!) but I'm still unsure how much he will actually be able to save when Congressional pets get led to slaughter.

And the rebuttal by Jindal:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-15754

1) The Reps are twisting in the wind -- especially given that the fiscal conservative, smaller government shtick rings hypocritical and hollow after the last 8 years of record deficit spending and government growth.
2) Jindal did his best to try and convey the Rep message but I just don;t see him leading the party or ever being president. He just didn't seem presidential.
3) Honestly, following on #3, Jindal looked and sounded like a magical elf trying to cast a spell on the American public by repeating the magic words "Americans can do an-y-thing" over and over and over.
4) The Reps have to take a page out of the Gingrich opposition book whereby they offer coherent proposals and counterproposals to any of the president's initiatives. Otherwise, they'll look like sour grapes and will wander the political wilderness for 40 years.

Your thoughts?

[akhhorus]

So, I watched the address by Obama:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-15753

1) Did a good job of explaining why the stimulus was important and preparing America for even more deficit spending.
2) Set forth for all to see the framework of his legacy: energy, health care and education with responsible spending (lol). Considering the guy has only been in office for 35 days, that's impressive -- especially when you take into account that his predecessor failed assemble and project such a cogent agenda in 8 years.
3) Showed excellent leadership and had a positive tone that is going to be *vital* in restoring consumer confidence.
4) Seemed conciliatory in his addressing of the Republicans, in general
5) Was ardent about cutting wasteful spending (yea!) but I'm still unsure how much he will actually be able to save when Congressional pets get led to slaughter.

And the rebuttal by Jindal:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-15754

1) The Reps are twisting in the wind but the fiscal conservative, smaller government message rings hypocritical and hollow after the last 8 years of record deficit spending and government growth.
2) Jindal did his best to try and convey the Rep message but I just don;t see him leading the party or ever being president. He just didn't seem presidential.
3) Honestly, following on #3, Jindal looked and sounded like a magical elf trying to cast a spell on the American public by repeating the magic words "Americans can do an-y-thing" over and over and over.
4) The Reps have to take a page out of the Gingrich opposition book whereby they offer coherent proposals and counterproposals to any of the president's initiatives. Otherwise, they'll look like sour grapes and will wander the political wilderness for 40 years.

Your thoughts?

Good summary.

I would add that Obama is staking his re-election and legacy on results, not efforts with this speech. It was LBJ levels of ambitious. I also think that Obama is channeling Reagan's skill to drive his opposition nuts without having to deviate from his policy goals.

Jindal destroyed his presidential chances with his rebuttal, and I agree with David Brooks: that speech shows the essential problem with the party now, there's just no leadership and no ideas.

[LATrueRedskin]

Jindal sounded like he was speaking to a bunch of 1st graders on "Reading Rainbow".

[shally]

Good summary.

I would add that Obama is staking his re-election and legacy on results, not efforts with this speech. It was LBJ levels of ambitious. I also think that Obama is channeling Reagan's skill to drive his opposition nuts without having to deviate from his policy goals.

Jindal destroyed his presidential chances with his rebuttal, and I agree with David Brooks: that speech shows the essential problem with the party now, there's just no leadership and no ideas.

jindal doesnt want to run until 2016...they will trot out palin or some other sacrificial lamb, most likely in 2012

if the economy improves Obama is unbeatable- barring some unforseen calamity

[akhhorus]

jindal doesnt want to run until 2016...they will trot out palin or some other sacrificial lamb, most likely in 2012

If I'm Jindal, I do a good job as Gov, maybe move to the Senate in a few years and build my resume.

if the economy improves Obama is unbeatable- barring some unforseen calamity

Agreed.

[BurgundyNGold]

jindal doesnt want to run until 2016...they will trot out palin or some other sacrificial lamb, most likely in 2012

if the economy improves Obama is unbeatable- barring some unforseen calamity
It doesn't matter when he wants to run, if he doesn't stop looking, acting and sounding like Gleek from Super Friends, he's not going to have a realistic shot at being POTUS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8eLbu_ugc

And that's before he even gets his act together on the issues, lol.

[RedskinsDave]

Good summary.

I would add that Obama is staking his re-election and legacy on results, not efforts with this speech. It was LBJ levels of ambitious. I also think that Obama is channeling Reagan's skill to drive his opposition nuts without having to deviate from his policy goals.

If he's already concerned with his re-election then he's a bigger fraud than I thought. His goals are apparently to outspend Bush and cry doom and gloom at every turn. That's pretty far from "hope" and "change". Actually it is change. Even though he sucked, Bush didn't go out and continually cry to the American people.

Jindal destroyed his presidential chances with his rebuttal, and I agree with David Brooks: that speech shows the essential problem with the party now, there's just no leadership and no ideas.

It's a stretch to say he destroyed his chances. It was a poor speech and he's a lot nerdier than I thought. I don't see where there's no leadership or ideas though. Stopping the idiotic spending is both.

[akhhorus]

If he's already concerned with his re-election then he's a bigger fraud than I thought. His goals are apparently to outspend Bush and cry doom and gloom at every turn. That's pretty far from "hope" and "change". Actually it is change. Even though he sucked, Bush didn't go out and continually cry to the American people.

Saying that he's staking his re-election on results doesn't mean he's already concerned with his re-election. It means that his re-election will be decided on results, not plans.

It's a stretch to say he destroyed his chances. It was a poor speech and he's a lot nerdier than I thought. I don't see where there's no leadership or ideas though. Stopping the idiotic spending is both.

Thinking that there's no leadership/idea problems in the party is evidence exactly of the problems inside the party lol.

[BostonSkins]

Obama is stuck when it comes to the economy. He probably should let citi and boa fail but he can't. Therefore he has to concoct these schemes to hand taxpayer money over to the banks through converting preferred shares into common. At the end of the day we are a long way from being done handing money over to these guys. So, let's hope that some of the stimulus money goes to funding the creation of something, anything that can help the economy grow again. The other problem of too much debt is too big for anyone to handle. Only time and responsible lending/borrowing can fix that one.

[akhhorus]

Obama is stuck when it comes to the economy. He probably should let citi and boa fail but he can't.

He's not going to have a choice on Citi next month when the quarterly reports come in, barring some miraculous recovery of it's stock value.

[Keino]

If he's already concerned with his re-election then he's a bigger fraud than I thought. His goals are apparently to outspend Bush and cry doom and gloom at every turn. That's pretty far from "hope" and "change". Actually it is change. Even though he sucked, Bush didn't go out and continually cry to the American people.

You're right, Bush didn't deal honestly with the American people at all. I find the honesty a refreshing changeand it gives me hope that we was a country will get out of this mess.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Wow. Obama delivered an outstanding speech.

I liked the part where Obama started talking about bringing down the deficit and Republicans started getting a little sassy. Obama seemed to be improvising when he continued: "The deficit that we inherited..."

I enjoyed the back and forth between the parties. Sort of added a bit of a British flavor to the evening.

Why the ***sensored*** was Jindal talking like that? I've seen the guy talk before and he seems concise and intelligent. So they put him before the entire country and coach him up to sound like he's reading a freakin' mother goose story to a kindergarten class!?! I don't know who the advice givers are on the GOP side these days but they are worse than Hillary's people! And I really mean that.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Extremely comical, on both parts.

[RedskinsDave]

You're right, Bush didn't deal honestly with the American people at all. I find the honesty a refreshing changeand it gives me hope that we was a country will get out of this mess.

He could take a dump on your dinner table and you'd find a way to compliment him. Sorry, even Clinton knew better than to whine about how bad things were at any time. We all know it's bad. His job is to fix things and rally the troops, not cry about them and spend more money. It's pretty negative after all that "hope" horse hockey you guys bought into.

[RedskinsDave]

Wow. Obama delivered an outstanding speech.

http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/shocker-2.jpg

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

He could take a dump on your dinner table and you'd find a way to compliment him. Sorry, even Clinton knew better than to whine about how bad things were at any time. We all know it's bad. His job is to fix things and rally the troops, not cry about them and spend more money. It's pretty negative after all that "hope" horse hockey you guys bought into.

How about "Fiscal Responsibility"? I spit my drink out.

[Keino]

He could take a dump on your dinner table and you'd find a way to compliment him. Sorry, even Clinton knew better than to whine about how bad things were at any time. We all know it's bad. His job is to fix things and rally the troops, not cry about them and spend more money. It's pretty negative after all that "hope" horse hockey you guys bought into.


Really? Feel free to prove that.

Look, shit is bad right now. Everyone has felt it or know someone who has felt or is feeling it. You want him to blow dishonest smoke ala the previous guy? I certainly don't. Talking about the issues honestly is the first step to dealing with them.

Clinton did not face this at all. The economy has not been this bad since the Great Depression.

[RedskinsDave]

Maybe he should come out and explain how throwing money at the problem will fix it instead of glossing over the issue. He says its bad, says they will fix it and then hands us the stimulus package which makes Bush look like he had fiscal restraint. If you had a gaping wound, I told you I could help and then I handed you a knife to fix it, would that make you "hopeful"?

You can say what you want about my politics but I am solidly on record for being against frivolous spending. At least half that package is precisely that.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Maybe he should come out and explain how throwing money at the problem will fix it instead of glossing over the issue. .

So you want him to break out the chalk board and a pointer? Maybe you should go read a book about the 30s. Maybe Bobby Jindal will read it to you nice and slow.

He says its bad, says they will fix it and then hands us the stimulus package which makes Bush look like he had fiscal restraint.

Let's see how the budget looks after 8 years. Your boy inherited a surplus and left with a $1.2 trillion deficit.

If you had a gaping wound, I told you I could help and then I handed you a knife to fix it, would that make you "hopeful"?


Only if my body was being invaded by tiny Republicans.

[RedskinsDave]

So you want him to break out the chalk board and a pointer? Maybe you should go read a book about the 30s. Maybe Bobby Jindal will read it to you nice and slow.

Actually find me anyone who thinks the plan will do anything good in the long term. How did Wall Street react? Yeah, thought so.

Let's see how the budget looks after 8 years. Your boy inherited a surplus and left with a $1.2 trillion deficit.

Get over your stupid talking points. He effed up and spent too much. Don't act like 9-11-01 didn't make a difference though. Good thing we've got fiscal responsibility now. Oh. Wait.

Only if my body was being invaded by tiny Republicans.

Keep your dreams to yourself.

[Keino]

Maybe he should come out and explain how throwing money at the problem will fix it instead of glossing over the issue. He says its bad, says they will fix it and then hands us the stimulus package which makes Bush look like he had fiscal restraint. If you had a gaping wound, I told you I could help and then I handed you a knife to fix it, would that make you "hopeful"?

You can say what you want about my politics but I am solidly on record for being against frivolous spending. At least half that package is precisely that.

I am taking him at his word that he is spending now for the purpose of getting us moving in the right direction. I don't care for the package all that much myself, frankly. But steps have to be taken to get the markets moving and credit flowing. I really see no other way, do you?

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

I am taking him at his word that he is spending now for the purpose of getting us moving in the right direction. I don't care for the package all that much myself, frankly. But steps have to be taken to get the markets moving and credit flowing. I really see no other way, do you?

Who are you talking about, Bush or Obama?

[BurgundyNGold]

So, I'm guessing no love for the Gleek pull?

http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/photos/examination_room/gleek.jpg

[akhhorus]

So, I'm guessing no love for the Gleek pull?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/bsp/hi/rugby_league/rules/referees_signals/img/yellow_card.jpg

The 30 Rock comparisons were funnier.


Play on!

[BurgundyNGold]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/bsp/hi/rugby_league/rules/referees_signals/img/yellow_card.jpg

The 30 Rock comparisons were funnier.

Play on!
30 Rock? Who'd they compare Jindal to?

[akhhorus]

30 Rock? Who'd they compare Jindal to?

Kenneth from 30 Rock. I admit never watching the show, but I did laugh at the clips posted.

[BurgundyNGold]

Kenneth from 30 Rock. I admit never watching the show, but I did laugh at the clips posted.
I don't watch it either which is probably why I thumped on the reference, lol.

Here is Jindal:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8899/jindal.jpg

Kenneth from 30 Rock:

http://amysrobot.com/files/30rock_kenneth.JPG



Stand by for the next post because I can't post more that 2 images (pfffft).

[akhhorus]

I don't watch it either which is probably why I thumped on the reference, lol.

Here is Jindal:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Bobby_Jindal,_official_109th_Congressional_photo.j pg/225px-Bobby_Jindal,_official_109th_Congressional_photo.j pg

Kenneth from 30 Rock

http://amysrobot.com/files/30rock_kenneth.JPG

Stand by for the next post becuase I can't post more that 2 images (pfffft).

I think the comparison was audio and not visual.

[BurgundyNGold]

Or...

Jindal:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8899/jindal.jpg

Gleek from Super Friends:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4337/gleek.jpg

Screw 30 rock. Gleek is a Jindal ringer, lol.

[RedskinsDave]

I am taking him at his word that he is spending now for the purpose of getting us moving in the right direction. I don't care for the package all that much myself, frankly. But steps have to be taken to get the markets moving and credit flowing. I really see no other way, do you?

Absolutely, I do. Throwing money at social issues isn't going to fix anything. If the Stimulus was only filled with financial items and infrastructure improvements, it would make sense. I didn't think it was your type of fix either.

I would rather the money be spent of helping Americans who were hurt by the credit and housing crash. I know it seems like something I wouldn't normally stand behind but I would prefer that some of the people who are losing their homes could be helped and in an aggressive way. I am not talking about the guy who bought a 600K home on 40K a year. I am talking about the guy making 40K who bought and got screwed by a neg am loan. The banks should have done this on their own but for some reason did not.

[BurgundyNGold]

Absolutely, I do. Throwing money at social issues isn't going to fix anything. If the Stimulus was only filled with financial items and infrastructure improvements, it would make sense. I didn't think it was your type of fix either.

I would rather the money be spent of helping Americans who were hurt by the credit and housing crash. I know it seems like something I wouldn't normally stand behind but I would prefer that some of the people who are losing their homes could be helped and in an aggressive way. I am not talking about the guy who bought a 600K home on 40K a year. I am talking about the guy making 40K who bought and got screwed by a neg am loan. The banks should have done this on their own but for some reason did not.
LMAO. I'll give you 3 guesses why not and the first 2 don't count.

I've used the analogy before about how the current TARP efforts are like an industrial spill. We currently having 100s of people at the mouth of a river, hopelessly capturing water in buckets and trying to find a way to separate ecosystem altering pollutants from the river before it can dump into the ocean. So far, they keep calling for more people with more buckets. At some point -- and this had better be soon -- the FRB, Treasury and the WH need to look up river and try to stop the pollutants before they come into the water.

Millions of Americans are getting crushed by credit card, small business and other forms of debt. The banks did the same NINJA stuff on these. These interest rates can go upwards of 30% for no reason at all and they have. Citi just raised rates on nearly all of their customers -- less than a month after getting $45B from the Fed.

Since nobody (or at least not many) of these folks with this debt can refinance anymore (because they have already taken their equity out or because they are upside down on their mortgage) how are they going to settle these debts? They likely can't file bankruptcy anymore (thanks, GOP).

Banks have no interest in consolidating personal, credit card or business debt at a fixed 6% or 8% because that would mean taking the fictional, at-risk 15-30% cash cows off of their books. They're repeating the same greedy steps that led to them not fixing the problems with mortgages in the first place.

[Ibleedburgundy]

So, I'm guessing no love for the Gleek pull?

http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/photos/examination_room/gleek.jpg

I thought it was hilarious.

[Keino]

Absolutely, I do. Throwing money at social issues isn't going to fix anything. If the Stimulus was only filled with financial items and infrastructure improvements, it would make sense. I didn't think it was your type of fix either.

I would rather the money be spent of helping Americans who were hurt by the credit and housing crash. I know it seems like something I wouldn't normally stand behind but I would prefer that some of the people who are losing their homes could be helped and in an aggressive way. I am not talking about the guy who bought a 600K home on 40K a year. I am talking about the guy making 40K who bought and got screwed by a neg am loan. The banks should have done this on their own but for some reason did not.

But that's what the plan is supposed to be doing. Helping the responsible people out who were burned by the housing/credit crisis. The problem as I see it, is that it seems to punish the guy who put 20% down (keino) who has watched the value of his house plummett to the point of being upside down on loan to value. There is nothing in the plan to help that guy, because the plan as I understand it is to be capped at 105% LTV. And you are right, the Banks should and Could have done this on their own.

I know you hate the analogy, but this is our great depression. FDR had to set up a bunch of temporary spending programs and I admit some of his temporary programs became permanent, so I can understand your fear there. However, I don't view his Spending as merely "throwing money at the problem". I view his spending as an investment into job creation and innovation with some mecahnisms to incentivize the flow of credit again. We have to create an environment of innovation. It's what has gotten us out of every jam and stagnant period in American history, and I don't think this is any different. You mention Slick Willy earlier. You and I both know that the internet/tech boom is what had us all doing well in the 90s.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Actually find me anyone who thinks the plan will do anything good in the long term.

The goal isn't for the long term. The point of the stimulus is to smooth over the Republican induced recession. But while we're painting with a broad brush, there are actually some long term plans in there that probably shouldn't be.

How did Wall Street react? Yeah, thought so.


**** wall street. They can stomp their feet all they want. Ended up down 80 points yesterday. Not exactly a huge loss.

How did the DOW react to the last year of Bush? Where have you been over the last two years in terms of pretending there is a direct correlation between every blip in the DOW and the POTUS? Do you honestly believe every negative blip = Obama, and every positive blip = outside forces?

Do you think yesterday's decline had nothing to do with the dismal home sales report?

Get over your stupid talking points. He effed up and spent too much. Don't act like 9-11-01 didn't make a difference though.

...speaking of frivolous spending.

Sure, about $200 billion of the national debt over the last 8 years can be attributed to the war in Afghanistan. Add in DHS and enhanced intelligence agencies and you might get to $500 billion (CIA doesn't release budgets anymore).

The $800 billion spent on Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and the Bush administration knew that at the time. Judging by administration statements before they took power, it probably would have happened regardless.

About $2 trillion can be attributed to when Bush passed the "largest Government spending bill in history"-that is what we call tax cuts these days according to Jindal.

So if you are saying 1/10th of the $5 trilllion in national debt built up under Republicans is due to the GWOT, I'll give you that. Hell, it might even account for 1/8th.

[BostonSkins]

Everyone that signed a neg-am loan and is shocked that eventually a borrower has to actually pay down the principal on a loan deserves to be foreclosed on. It is precisely because of these types of people and loans that house prices were so inflated. This essentially kept responsible buyers on the sidelines.