The Party of NO! (GOPONO!) is so caught up in their partisan intransigence and Obama Derangement Syndrom that they refused to applaud TAX CUTS and even when the president proposed taxing the banks. As reported below, the image of all the Republicans sitting on their hands as the president talks about TAX CUTS and taxing the banks will be in every political ad video in the elections coming next November.
"The Republican lawmakers in attendance sat on their hands while the president discussed policy provisions that, ostensibly, are very much in their philosophical wheelhouse. When Republicans didn't even applaud on behalf of his tax cuts, Obama pointed to the GOP side of the chamber and expressed surprise: "I thought I'd get some applause on that one," he said.
So, apparently, did others. A Democratic strategist quite pleased with the chilly Republican reception emailed the Huffington Post the following: "Footage of every Republican sitting when Obama talked about bank tax is going straight into every 2010 ad."
Here is that part of Presidenty Obama's speech:
"Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.
But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.
So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.
To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Apparently the GOP is against this, since no GOPer applauded it.)
As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.
That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts."
Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime."
h/t HuffPost
Reviews of President Obama's SOTU speech:
Chris Cilizza, Washington Post:
"From the start of the speech to its ends, the common thread was an appeal to the country's shared values of what it means to be an American. Obama began by placing this moment in a historical context, an attempt to show that we've faced tough times before and always managed to persevere. Time and again he appealed to both the members of Congress in the House chamber and the American people to dig deep to find the values that unite rather than divide. "We don't quit," he said at one point in a direct appeal to the can-do nature of Americans. "I don't quit." At another he implored: "These aren't Republican values or Democratic values, business values or labor values, they're American values."
New York Times editorial:
"It was a relief to see him challenge the Senate’s Republicans for their obstruction and his party for tending to “run for the hills” rather than wield the power of its majority.
Watching Mr. Obama, we were also reminded of the world’s relief that he is very much not George W. Bush. He is managing the necessary exit from Iraq. His decision to send more troops to Afghanistan was courageous and sound. On Wednesday, he rejected “the false choice” between security and the rule of law.
[skip]
We respect Mr. Obama’s deliberative nature. But too often in the last year he lingered on the sidelines, allowing his opponents to define and distort the issues and, sometimes, him — as happened last year in the health care debate
His speech Wednesday was a reminder that he is a gifted orator, able to inspire with grand vision and the simple truth frankly spoken. It was a long time coming."
The Wall Street Journal:
"So much for all of that Washington talk about a midcourse change of political direction. If President Obama took any lesson from his party's recent drubbing in Massachusetts, and its decline in the polls, it seems to be that he should keep doing what he's been doing, only with a little more humility, and a touch more bipartisanship.
That's our reading of last night's lengthy State of the Union address, which mostly repackaged the President's first-year agenda in more modest political wrapping. "Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved," he said, in his most notable grace note."
25 comments:
I wouldn't applaud any politician calling for tax cuts, but I'm against tax cuts.
I won't hold it against anyone for not interrupting a President's speech, whether or not it is negative or positive interruptions. Now, if the applause is missing from the beginning or end, that would be out of line.
dmarks,
You missed my point.
What point? That it is good to interrupt a President's speech?
Grey. Your "claim zero" part of the sentence made no sense, but if you are claiming that the President is in office due to affirmative action, you know nothing about the election process, and are probably trying to score a racist point. Come on, is it possible to criticize the President without bashing him for skin color?
I see that this post will once again bring out the 'greatness' that is the American people...
The reality is that it wasn't the speaker or what was spoken in regards to the SOTU speech...
The truly disgusting aspect of last night was the audience, both in the room and watching on television...
Dmark, I'll try to be clearer for you..
Barack Obama smugly described us as “clinging to guns and religion” and told us “don’t do a lot of talking and get a mop”.
He was we we’d up, and he knew the police acted stupidly before he had all the facts.
He didn’t know a lot about Scott Brown’s record, but he knew that he didn’t like his truck.
Obama deprecated the wealthy, the oil companies, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and those people “waving tea bags” hundreds or even thousands of times, while hardly ever denouncing Al Qaeda, sparsely mentioning Hamas or Hezbollah, and never calling our enemies terrorists.
He has made countless threats against the banks and their CEO’s, but not one time speaking on how he was going to make the streets safer for Americans.
He declared that he would not allow policies to help the fortunate few, then took vouchers away from low-income black students in Washington DC.
Obama said that he understood the economy better than John McCain, then he instituted an agenda that sent the nation to 10% unemployment, then he blamed George Bush for that 10% unemployment, after he said the stimulus would hold us at 8%.
Another new low in behavior for this president is when he insulted the Supreme Court. AS well as having a Presidential Public Enemies list..
How nice!
And when he Declared .. ‘I Don’t Quit’
I say, That’s too bad! He really should reconsider.
"Dmark, I'll try to be clearer for you.."
OK. I appreciate it....
"He was we we’d up"
Thanks. I understand it all perfectly.
Yawn.
Who cares of GOPsters applaud or not?
Who really cares what Weepy John Boehner & the rest of that lot has to say?
Who really believes the greatest desire of the American people is for 'bi-partisanship'?
Puleeze Mr. President. You're a Democrat with majorities in both houses of Congress. Get on with it.
Never fear. The Republicans will despise you no matter what you do so you might just as well adhere to principles the Democratic party has long espoused and work to conclude the 'war', fix the economy and health care and work to repair the damage decades of conservative assault on government has caused.
Arthurstone: Good comment. You was we we'd up to".
Actually, come to think of it, that is such an odd phrase. I figured I'd pop it into Google.
Turns out Grey Falcon is another spamming troll. The we'ed up thing was copied without correction from his own blog.
I think the Gray Falcon was advocating legalization of marajuana. He just spelled "weed" "we'd" as in "Hey dudes. Let's weed up."
I heartily agree with my new friend Gray Falcon.
Grey Falcon squawks that it's up to the president to keep America's streets safe?
Another troll who hasn't the slightest notion of how the federal government works.
Imagine how G. Falcon’s head would explode if Mr. Obama actually did send the National Guard into America’s streets. The loonies on the right would be calling for his head! Hint: the individual mayors of cities and towns and the governors of states are responsible for keeping the streets safe. But don’t tell G. Falcon, because that may get him all wee-wee‘d up.
G.Falcon continues his sobbing rant with Beckerhead talking points based on fantasy and absolutely no facts, repeating the same old, tired, lies: Mr. Obama hates America blah, blah, blah, Mr. Obama is helping Al Qaeda blah, blah, blah.
He is a perfect representation of the unhinged tea bagger:
“…but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. [His] is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing."
G. Falcon if you care to discuss the SOTU address like an adult, you’re welcome to. But don't perch here if your only contribution is the toothless rant you’ve deposited.
His speech was, just as many of thought it would be, full of rhetoric and nonsense. Heavy on self praise, and shy of any real substance. His speech writers certainly had a good idea of what the people may have wanted to hear...? He failed to fool me, as I believe most Americans, with his continual perpetuation of lies he cannot seem to come to terms with. I found at no moment was their ANY reason for there to be laughter during that speech, yet there was, more than once. It just goes to show the mentality of the Democrats, and their crass understanding that we will accept what is presented to us. They can stand and clap, and cheer on the empty suit they praise so much, but the American people aren't buying it...Time to put your big boy panties on Obama, because you ain't fooling us any longer with your smooth talk, and condescending tone...You may be fooling your fans and your fat wife, and the people here on this blog, but not the majority of America.
The most disturbing thing I saw was our Attorney General standing up and clapping five feet away from the Justices. He’s the guy that ignores the law when it involves the rights of American citizens, ignores Black Panther thugs intimidating voters on voting day, yet wants to grant those same rights to terrorist bastards trying to kill us.
Our President has NO respect for separation of government. He doesn’t want any branch other than the Executive to have power hence: all the czars and back dooring of restrictions on his office. Classy guy. The pompous ass still doesn’t get it yet. He still thinks it’s all about him. I guess a couple of letters to him mean more than 1.2 million people marching on Washington or the Miracle in Massachusetts. Hopefully he’ll “get it” on election day 2012.
GF: "His speech was, just as many of thought it would be, full of rhetoric and nonsense."
SK: What planet do you live on? All SOTU addresses have rhetoric in them. Nonsense? That is your biased opinion backed up by no examples, therefore, nonsense as well.
GF: "Heavy on self praise, and shy of any real substance."
SK: Really GF, this is tiresome. And boring. More opinions without any examples. Yawn.
GF: "He failed to fool me, as I believe most Americans, with his continual perpetuation of lies he cannot seem to come to terms with."
SK: And you are annoying us with your “perpetuation” of unsupported claims with which you cannot come to terms.
GF: "I found at no moment was their ANY reason for there to be laughter during that speech, yet there was, more than once. It just goes to show the mentality of the Democrats, and their crass understanding that we will accept what is presented to us."
SK: You have no sense of humor? How truly tragic. Mr. Obama does. “A sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting things done”--Dwight D. Eisenhower
GF: "They can stand and clap, and cheer on the empty suit they praise so much, but the American people aren't buying it."
SK: Where’s the data to prove that? Do you like to put your sad little opinions out there and expect people to nod and say “So true, so true?” So wrong, so wrong
GF: "Time to put your big boy panties on Obama, because you ain't fooling us any longer with your smooth talk, and condescending tone...You may be fooling your fans and your fat wife, and the people here on this blog, but not the majority of America."
SK; Grey Falcon, Obama's personal favorability rating is 58%, with 40% unfavorable.
Grey Falcon is so angry, so unhinged by the fact that Barack Hussein Obama will be the President of the United States of America and the Commander in Chief, that all he has in his little shriveled quiver of insults to Mr. Obama is “your fat wife.” Behold the desperate gasps of a deranged troll.
GF:"The most disturbing thing I saw was our Attorney General standing up and clapping five feet away from the Justices. He’s the guy that ignores the law when it involves the rights of American citizens, ignores Black Panther thugs intimidating voters on voting day, yet wants to grant those same rights to terrorist bastards trying to kill us."
SK: The only reason I’m wasting my precious time here is to show anyone who bothers to read this how dumb you are. You make the statement that the AG “ignores the law when it involves the rights of American citizens?” But you don’t produce any evidence.
Pulling opinions out of your anus does not make them facts. Oh. One other thing. Holder wasn’t the AG on “voting day,” November 2008. Bush’s AG was.
You’re a sad, angry little troll. And most likely you're mean to dogs and children.
TRUTH 101 mistyped:
'I heartily agree with my new friend Gray Falcon.'
Perhaps you're cracking wise? I certainly gave you more credit than that. Gray Falcon is a mess.
Arthurstone,
TRUTH is "cracking wise." He likes to pull the trolls' chains.
Good.
Scared me for a moment.
Not that Gray Falcon isn't a truly remarkable man/woman/other of letters...
Har. Har.
Shaw,
I'm surprised no one is calling him on his root canal analogy. He concurred with a bad policy decision and made that policy his own;he now points to it as a tough but necessary choice.
I strongly criticized Bush for making wrong decisions and staying with them,and being unwilling to admit he was wrong.
I personally have to hold Obama to the same standard.
Shaw, Truth, etc. Why are you arguing with Grey Falcon? His post was plagiarized from someone named Dave B. over at the Scared Monkeys blog, and the beginning was swiped from someone named EINY at a Brietbart page
Best to argue with Dave B or EINY if they ever show, and handle GF's plagiarized spam accordingly.
Chances are, if a comment looks like a press release or something and is dropped into the comments without any regard to the post or surrounding comments, it is spam, and this time it turned out to be, once more.
I'd have to agree with the President on this one.
The bank bailout was far from enjoyable but necessary.
Kind of like getting a root canal.
And we may even make some money on the deal.
Thanks dmarks,
I usually do that sort of investigating myself when a troll comments here. As you know, I've exposed many of the rabid trolls as plagiarizers and name stealers.
Gives us an idea of the worth of their arguments and protestations.
Zero. They can't even use their own words to promote a view point.
Shaw: They're hammering Pamela's blog pretty bad, and have started on mine too.
It's pretty easy to pick them out by the 'press-releasy' content, and they never address points made in your post or by other commenters.
If the comments look fishy like this, just grab a phrase, such as "Our President has NO respect for separation of government. He doesn’t want any branch other than the Executive to have power hence"
and pop it into Google within quotes, and you will find the original source. Or in the case of the spams on Pamela's blog, you will find many hundreds of identical sources.
Beth is apparently doing this now as "anonymous" in your more recent comment, cutting and pasting from her posts elsewhere.
Just shows to go ya that they can't argue with their own ideas their own positions, so they have to steal other people's words.
It's what childen do when they know they can't compete with the grown ups.
Arthurstone: A bailout was necessary, but it could have been much differently. If the victims of predatory mortgages got the assistance, that would have rescued them while indirectly rescuing the banks. Instead, the mortgage paper was rescued, millions of people lost their homes, and the Great Recession continues to last even now. (Note: recessions don't really end until job growth begins.)
I agree the bank bailout should have had a different focus libhom.
Solving the problem with the borrowers should have had a greater emphasis than solving the essentially self-created problems of the lenders.
And the recession does drag on longer than it should in large part because of a too-small stimulus package and in even larger part because of GOP obstructionism.
But I'm not quite ready to put Obama in the same category as Boehner and that gang of incompetent, tea-bagging wankers.
But I may be later.
Cheers!
"And the recession does drag on longer than it should in large part because of a too-small stimulus package"
I'm not sure that "small" is as much a part of it as "mis-designed". What business did billions of dollars in foreign aid have in a plan to stimulate the US economy? Or money for the National Endowment for the Arts to use as part of a lobbying campaign for the healthcare plan?
Also, CNN (not Fox: CNN) had a report yesterday on the ballyhooed first stimulus project that was started the day the President signed the stimulus package. It's a bridge in Missouri, and it was supposed to create hundreds of jobs. CNN investigated it from all angles, and found that the jobs created were "a couple".
So, if Obama's "too small" $700 billion dollar stimulus package created 2 jobs instead of hundreds, what would the right size package have been? One hundred times larger? A $70 trillion dollar stimulus package in order to get hundreds of jobs out of such projects instead of two?
Post a Comment