Okay, I have to be honest...this is what I heard in Obama's SOTU

[Atman]

"Corporations! Business profits, Wall Street! Corporate breaks! Corporations, profits, big business! Corporate corporate corporate!

At least he didn't tell us just to go shopping.

[LaurenG]

1. I heard him say no more tax breaks for big oil. nt

[grahamhgreen]

9. I heard "oil subsidies will now go to produce nuclear waste that lasts 30,000 years"

[WinkyDink]

37. Wake me when THAT is a reality.

[PassingFair]

2. Thank you for summing it up. That's exactly what I heard...

but I grew so disgusted that I switched it
off mid-way, so I thought I might have missed
his message about how the working class will
be able to keep their homes.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. So

A better economy and more jobs won't help with that? What kind of program/policy would you have liked to hear him propose to address this concern? :shrug:

[PassingFair]

11. How about an actual JOBS program?

How about tax cuts for companies
that hire local workers?

How about lowering the SS age
threshold to 55?

How about bailing out mortgage
holders and NOT Wallstreet?

[jtown1123]

53. bra-fucking-vo

[eridani]

64. No. A "better ecomony" for Wall Street and related financial whores--

--will not help with that.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. You missed Social Security cuts?

O'Donnell, the NY Times, and some other caught it.

Enjoy your contribution to historically-low taxation on America's wealthiest.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Where did he mention that?

specifics please?

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Where O'Donnell, the NY Times Editorial Board

and I all heard it.

You didn't?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. Must be speaking in code, right?

:shrug: I didn't hear it.

[jtown1123]

29. NO cuts per se but he wants a "bipartisan" solution to SS and mentioned

it in the deficit reduction section of his speech. That concerns me. It's all good and well to say you won't "Slash" benefits for future generations but something tells me he doesn't think add on private accounts and raising the retirement age are cuts (they are). Why do we need a bipartisan solution? What Republican had good ideas for SS? Let's just raise the tax cap and be on our way, nothing to see here.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

56. Political speak

First off, he wants to be "bipartisan" and he believes most people want the parties to work together and he pretty much has to say that during SOTU whether he (or any of us) truly believes the Republicans have any plans let alone any intention to work with him and the rest of the Democratic Party. At any rate, the parties have to work together to get anything done for at least the next two years (and, unfortunately, probably longer) and he has to make it crystal clear to the public that HE is not the one who is preventing the two parties from working together.
As to your specific concerns, I believe he spoke against privatization of Social Security in SOTU and was against Bush's privatization plans back in 2005 when he was a Senator, so private accounts are never going to be on the table for any kind of serious discussion. Republicans may try pushing them (again) but and I honestly can't see President Obama or any other Democratic member of Congress going along with it. If the Democrats didn't go along with it back in 2005 when Bush was POTUS and the Republicans firmly controlled Congress (and it would've been politically safer to go along with it), there's absolutely no reason to think that any of them would support it now.
Raising the retirement age might be a slightly different story but he hasn't endorsed it recently nor has he been in favor of it in the past so I guess we'll just have to wait and see what ultimately comes up for discussion and what position he takes on it. I think raising the retirement age would be a tough sell with most people (at least until people can start getting replacement body parts anyway :eyes:).

[eridani]

65. He said he wanted "bipartisan" cooperation to strengthen Social Security

IOW, the Repukes propose to destroy it, and "compromising" on something less than total destruction amounts to "saving" it.

[Godhumor]

20. You know, Manny, I am reading the NY Times editorial on the speech and there is no mention

of cutting Social Security benefits.

"The White House said Mr. Obama needed to make some proposal like that to remain in the debate. That is likely true. But he also made clear that there is no long-term solution without cutting military spending and mandatory spending on Medicare and Social Security."

Spending refers to costs not benefits. Again, as I addressed before, he even mentioned in the December 10 npr interview that people like floating around that he is talking about the cost curve. If you'd like an OP on what a cost curve actually is, I'd be more than happy to put one together.

Editorial is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/opinion/26wed1.html?_r=1

[Robb]

21. It's code, apparently.

"Cost curve" is code for "let grandma rot." We need some special glasses, or perhaps a colored pill, to really understand. :D

[MannyGoldstein]

33. For Social Security, "Cost Curve" = "Benefits Cuts"

Benefits are the only spending to reduce - please let me know if I'm missing something.

[Robb]

35. LOL You think no one who works for SSA gets a paycheck?

No heat in the buildings? :rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Overhead less than 1% of all Social Security spending

Do you think you can get any meaningful savings there?

Like Medicare, it's excruciatingly efficient.

[Godhumor]

50. The less than 1% of spending is administrative (i.e. payroll, etc) expenses from the 2 trust funds

And does not include any other expenses such as maintenance, rent, equipment, etc.

Even so, 1% of the trust funds represented administrative expenses of over 10 billion dollars in 2009.

On top of that, administrative workload in SSA has increased substantially due to regulations and gearing up for boomer retirements.

There are many reports that the cost of administering a person's social security benefit actually goes up as he or she ages (As, I think, would be expected) leading to the so called "plateau effect" on costs (Costs will hit a point where no matter how much they increase, the benefit doesn't go up by any substantial aspect). So yes, the cost curve can and should be examined.

Finally, there are other indirect costs associated with Social Security like OIG investigations, OPM's involvement, the fact that SSA provides administrative assistance for Medicare, etc.

A bureaucracy always has dead ends, waste and bloat. SSA doesn't deal with it any better than any other area regardless of the trusts.

And, oh yeah, a huge part of the cost curve will deal with increasing solvency of the program (Before accusing me of anything, I am going directly off the future year rundown estimates for various programs provided by the SSA on its website)--that is not the same as cutting benefits.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. Do you have a link for your higher-than-1% assertion?

I've never seen anything other than 1%.

[Godhumor]

60. Which is administrative expenses. Buildings, etc. is covered in the general federal ledgers.

I don't have a direct link to the physical asset expenditures in the mammoth federal budget and asset reports, but that is where they be (Seriously, the footnotes on depreciation of government owned or leased assets is headache inducing.).

I suppose it would be better to refer to those as indirect expenses as the money is not drawn from the Trusts.

I agree with you, by the way, that SSA administrative cost is extremely efficient.

I feel that a majority of the "cost" cutting that will happen will be in long-run solvency areas, and will revolve around eliminating, for all practical purposes, a diminishing return in trust allocation to benefit expenditure. The only disagreement I have with your assertion on the president's language is that I don't think he is saying to cut benefits but to figure out a better way of ensuring they stay around and healthy.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. So we agree that he called for spending cuts. So answer this, please:

As far as I know, there are only two things that Social Security spends money on:

1. Benefits, 99% of spending
2. Overhead, 1% of spending

So which of these do you think Obama expects to cut?

[NYC_SKP]

31. Not to put too fine a point on this, but "spending" is NOT same as "benefits". Not by a long shot.

Hai,

Having not one but TWO parents in and out of ERs and long term care facilities over and over during the last two years, I can tell you with PAINFUL CERTAINTY that (in the instances of "care" provided to my folks) somewhere between 35% and 70% of spending from the Medicare fund is WASTEFUL, HARMFUL, or just plain STUPID, or all three.

Find someone with my elderly parents who can refute this and then we can talk.

Spending ≠ Benefits.

Obama is right.

:patriot:

[MannyGoldstein]

32. That's Medicare. Different than Social Security, which is the topic at hand.

Social Security is a direct cash payment.

On another note, sorry to hear of your experiences in the health care system. I hope that things are going better now.

[mkultra]

55. The Social Security Administration is responsible for determining Medicare eligibility

and processing premium payments for the Medicare program. Medicare came into existence with the passage of the e Social Security Act of 1965

[ixion]

4. Obama has proven to be quite an ardent corpratist...

the multi-nationals must be so proud. :puke:

[fasttense]

5. You know what I heard?

Excessive debt - balance the budget, cut spending, cut spending, cut spending on everything BUT the wars.

Reduce spending, small, small, government.

Oh, by the way, America and our infrastructure is collapsing but we are cutting spending and earmarks.

I didn't hear anything about the recession or how government spending cuts during times of great economic difficulties result in more economic difficulties.

You know what else he never said? He never said one word about all the homeless, the massive foreclosures, and the continued housing crisis.

He sounded very Herbert Hooverish.

[DrDan]

7. was this the Paul Ryan rebuttal you are referring to?

cut spending on everything but the wars
small small gov't
cut infrastructure spending
ignore the homeless, foreclosures and the housing crisis

sounds pretty R to me

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Barack Hoover Obama - here's a great article on the parallels

From The Atlantic: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562

[somone]

52. "Like Hoover, Obama has been unable to make his actions live up to his words"

Good article - worth reading again.

[Fire1]

38. And in all of what you heard the baggers are still not

satisfied. Fuck'em all! Especially "half baked" and "chinless."

[lunatica]

10. We must not have heard the same speech

Being pro-business isn't the same as being pro-corporations. Without small businesses this country would be dead.

[boston bean]

12. When do you think he might take on the big boys so the little ones don't keep getting screwed?

small business, small businesss, small business, small business.....

Where have I heard these code words before?

[lunatica]

22. I didn't hear that in his speech which is what this thread is about

[boston bean]

24. huh?? didn't hear what?? small business (which you brought up) or

large corporations.

[Atman]

13. Don't for into the "small business" trap

When these guys say "small business," they're referring to some of the largest corporations in America, not Mom & Pops.

[lunatica]

23. Maybe, but still without small businesses the US is dead

[Hell Hath No Fury]

49. "...without small businesses the US is dead."

I agree completely.

Sadly, what few proposals O has put forth to help businesses have helped ZERO of the real snall business that I know, including the one I work for. In the past two years I have seen dozens of small and medium size businesses that were our clients go under. It continues today, with no let-up. My Mom's town is becoming a ghost town for small businesses -- 20 years of business growth has evaporated.

Wall Street/Big Business is doing fine and dandy with O's/the Government's help -- those small businesses that our couhtry needs so badly, not so much.

[blindpig]

18. nonsense

While small business does represent some significant numbers the concentrated power of big business completely overshadows it in the halls of power. Small businesses are ultimately doomed in the capitalists system, as the big boys search for new means of profit they will be assimilated. You'd think after the last 40 years of one section after another of small business disappearing, being overwhelmed by their corporate competitors, they'd get a clue.

[Atman]

40. +1000

Except, I've long since given up on them "getting a clue." That infers that they "don't get it." They get it. They know EXACTLY what they're doing.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. This conflation of actual small family business with smaller

parts of large Corporations is one of the most cynical and destructive bits of verbal flotsam mucking up the national discourse.

[Catherina]

42. Corning Chairman and CEO Wendell Weeks was among Obama's *honored guests*, sat withMichelle

Corning Chairman and CEO Wendell Weeks will be among the honored guests at President Barack Obama's State of the Union address tonight.


Corning Chairman and CEO Wendell Weeks will be among the honored guests at President Barack Obama's State of the Union address tonight. Weeks will sit with First Lady Michelle Obama and other guests who will represent some of the messages the President will likely emphasize during his annual speech to the nation.

Weeks is one of only two American business leaders to sit in the First Lady's box. The other is Xerox CEO Ursula Burns.

...

http://www.corning.com/news_center/features/state_of_the_union.aspx

President Obama shakes hands as Antonio Perez, chief executive officer of Eastman Kodak Co., left, David Barger,
chief executive officer of JetBlue Airways Corp., third from left, and Wendell Weeks, chief executive officer of Corning Inc., fourth from right, look on in the East Room of the White House. (Brendan Smialowski/Bloomberg News)

By Michael D. Shear
Hours before the House of Representatives is expected to vote on an $825 billion stimulus package, President Obama gathered titans of American industry for an East Room ceremony aimed at pressuring lawmakers for its passage.

...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/obama-makes-stimulus-pitch-wit.html

Corning, Xerox, not exactly small business.

[mmonk]

15. You hear well.

It was mostly top down for the most part, not ground up. There were a few little Keynesian ideas thrown in, but within the administrations's overall choice of voo doo economics.

[Lint Head]

17. I know our troops are precious but there seemed to be too much

applause for the military industrial killing machine. Flag waving is cheap applause. Let ROTC back into universities?
We need to tone done the military period. We spend 8 times more that all the world military countries combined on defense.
If we could just cut that done to 4 times it would make a difference.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Erose999]

25. +1 for telling it like it is. That speech was a complete capitulation to the GOP and the agenda of

Corporate America. "Encouraging private investment" in roads and bridges? Shit, we saw how well Halliburton cement works.... LOL

[Still a Democrat]

26. Then you didn't retain very well the first time

You might want to watch again?

[sharp_stick]

28. Improved listening skills

may be helpful in future interactions with humanity. If all you hear is what you want to hear there isn't much use in any discussion is there?

[Atman]

34. Blah blah blah

Yeah...you didn't hear what YOU wanted to hear, did you? Everyone else is wrong, but not YOU.

:eyes:

[sharp_stick]

46. No, I actually listened to it

When the lines you claim to have heard weren't even spoken, I kind of wonder who might be listening to what they want to hear.

He didn't say a lot of things that I wanted him to say but there's no point in just posting a bunch of patent bullshit and then claiming to have been wronged.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. He said more than that.

He also said that he'd veto any projects which your representative earmarked for your district.

So it's not all giveaways.

[robcon]

41. The speech was great.

The OP heard what he wanted to hear from Obama.

[Atman]

43. Really? No, the problem is the OP DIDN'T hear what he wanted to hear.

Like, some acknowledgement and some plans for the millions of Americans who are seriously hurting. He made so much of a big deal making the GOP happy, he appeared to forget about the regular folks. It was all about how great it is that Wall Street is making tons of money, that big corporations are making tons of money, that they all need more tax breaks (calling bullshit on taxes for the upper 1-2%...never happen while Boner and Turtle Boy are in charge). This is supposed to be a STATE OF THE UNION, as in, an address telling the country what state the union is in. I didn't see that...I saw a bunch of pap directed at big business and Wall Street. No mention of stopping the obscene war spending, etc.

What I WANTED to hear? Far from it. Far from it.

.

[jtown1123]

45. Your just asking too much/sarcasm

I'm 100% with you. I'm surprised a bunch of DUers don't want to hold our Democratic President to higher standards.

[robcon]

48. You heard what you wanted to hear: that Obama doesn't share your agenda.

I think it's phony to claim that you found your OP statements in his speech.

His speech was the opposite of what you found - but you WANTED to find those objectionable things that weren't there.

Sucks to be you.

edit: spell

[BOG PERSON]

44. hardly any talk about foreign policy

it must be safe to assume our foreign policy is a bigger failure than we can even imagine.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Godhumor]

51. People around here? Does that include everyone in the national flash polls?

Are you saying that the oevrwhelming majority of people who gave the speech a positive appraisal aren't capable of telling what the speech was actually about?

[earth mom]

54. Didn't watch it but I figured as much-Just more corporatist blather with a sprinkle of hope & change

for the deluded faithful.

:puke:

[PassingFair]

61. Here Earth Mom....

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hogwash_mr_president_20110126


Scheer says it the way I felt it.

[BOG PERSON]

58. n/m

[Smashcut]

62. Don't forget to INNOVATE!

Don't have a job? Job's gone to China? Must be because you're not INNOVATING!

[donheld]

63. He was talking to his desired base - Corporations