From Obama's Speech: Why We're in Trouble

[Townhallsavoy]

I'll lay out my ideas for how we build on the cornerstones of what it means to be middle class in America, and what it takes to work your way into the middle class in America: Job security, with good wages and durable industries. A good education. A home to call your own. Affordable health care when you get sick. A secure retirement even if you’re not rich. Reducing poverty. Reducing inequality. Growing opportunity. That’s what we need.

We have a problem.  It's become acceptable to rely on the government for our prosperity and advancement and those that do not want more government interference are seen as looney or ignorant.

Then, over the last six months, this gridlock has gotten worse.  I didn't think that was possible.  (Laughter.)  The good news is a growing number of Republican senators are looking to join their Democratic counterparts and try to get things done in the Senate. So that's good news.  (Applause.)  For example, they worked together on an immigration bill that economists say will boost our economy by more than a trillion dollars, strengthen border security, make the system work.

What makes our system work is the possibility for gridlocks.  While I completely understand the frustration a politician would have when their legislation is blocked by a section of Congress, I have to question how the government and the media has vilified those are responsible for this gridlock. 

Notice how he words he statement.  The good news is that Republicans are getting over their desire to prevent government from acting and are joining Democrats who want to "get things done." 

Another issue here is the fact that senators and representatives are not should not be working for the federal government.  They are representatives of a constituency specific to a very small region of the country.  Their decisions and actions should reflect solely on what is best for their citizens, but their roles have been redefined as being the muscle to enact the policies of an ideological group. 

The government has become more and more authoritative and has grasped more and more power, and there's no way a government can rule such a large area with diverse people groups with efficiency.  Makes you wonder how bad it will get when the government bubble bursts and we bounce back to needing to be self-sufficient without the resources to lounge in the comfort of our conveniences. 

[GH2001]

Good gosh 

I really try to be objective, non partisan, whatever. He makes it really hard to. Even some of his biggest defenders in the middle who have tried to be pragmatic are losing their patience.

[oldautiger]

If he really wants to know why things are so fucked up...........all he needs to do is look in a mirror.

[dallaswareagle]

If he really wants to know why things are so fucked up...........all he needs to do is look in a mirror.

If he did that, would that be reverse racism? 

[Townhallsavoy]

If he really wants to know why things are so fucked up...........all he needs to do is look in a mirror.

I think people need to stop focusing on him.  He's a figurehead.  It's not like if Hillary won things would be different.  I really don't think if McCain or Romney won things would be very different. 

America looks at the government for the immediate fix.  What's the government doing for you at all times?  What social, economic, and security needs are being met by the government right now? 

The Democrats are very good at persistently pushing their answers into legislation.  Republicans are being worn down to allow it to happen or provide their own. 

This isn't right.  Spencer Bachus shouldn't be relied upon to fix the country.  He should represent the state of Alabama.  Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be asked to fix the country.  She should represent San Francisco.

[Godfather]

I think people need to stop focusing on him.  He's a figurehead.  It's not like if Hillary won things would be different.  I really don't think if McCain or Romney won things would be very different. 

America looks at the government for the immediate fix.  What's the government doing for you at all times?  What social, economic, and security needs are being met by the government right now? 

The Democrats are very good at persistently pushing their answers into legislation.  Republicans are being worn down to allow it to happen or provide their own. 

This isn't right.  Spencer Bachus shouldn't be relied upon to fix the country.  He should represent the state of Alabama.  Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be asked to fix the country.  She should represent San Francisco. be shot

Fixed

[Townhallsavoy]

Fixed

But how about not? 

How about we let San Francisco be San Francisco and not be concerned with a San Franciscan representative being responsible for fixing crime rates in the Deep South? 

[wesfau2]

I think people need to stop focusing on him.  He's a figurehead.  It's not like if Hillary won things would be different.  I really don't think if McCain or Romney won things would be very different. 

Agreed.  The Pres, apart from the veto power, is a figurehead.

America looks at the government for the immediate fix.  What's the government doing for you at all times?  What social, economic, and security needs are being met by the government right now? 

That's not a partisan problem, though.  The entire (modern day) political process is built upon the theory that your representative ought to be able to bring home the bacon...or pork.

The Democrats are very good at persistently pushing their answers into legislation.  Republicans are being worn down to allow it to happen or provide their own. 

You don't really expect anyone to buy the "being worn down" line, do you?  Both sides have more money than the average 2nd world nation at their disposal.  Republicans are losing the battles because they hitched their wagons to the wrong (or non-sustainable, more accurately) horses.  "Provide their own" answers would be a great strategy for them, but their answers are appealing to a rapidly diminishing base.

[GH2001]

Agreed.  The Pres, apart from the veto power, is a figurehead.

That's not a partisan problem, though.  The entire (modern day) political process is built upon the theory that your representative ought to be able to bring home the bacon...or pork.

You don't really expect anyone to buy the "being worn down" line, do you?  Both sides have more money than the average 2nd world nation at their disposal.  Republicans are losing the battles because they hitched their wagons to the wrong (or non-sustainable, more accurately) horses.  "Provide their own" answers would be a great strategy for them, but their answers are appealing to a rapidly diminishing base.

If the GOP would stick to an uber conservative fiscal policy/balanced budget, non interventionist but vigil defense policy and a "moderate but let the states decide" social policy - the sky would be the limit. That's why I like Rand Paul. But his kind are far and few.

People like Pelosi, Reid, Leahy, McCain and Graham are old blood who represent exactly the political climate you mentioned. They all need to go. They aren't elected servants of the people anymore. They've become career politicians and all crave the power.

[CCTAU]

If the GOP would stick to an uber conservative fiscal policy/balanced budget, non interventionist but vigil defense policy and a "moderate but let the states decide" social policy - the sky would be the limit.

This was exactly what Romney TRIED to do. The fringe politics was brought up continuously by the left and the media to take focus off of the economy.


I'm not sure how you would stop that form happening.

If it were me and they asked, I would just say I don't care for the first four years. Fiscal reform ONLY for the first four years. Everything else gets VETOED!

[Townhallsavoy]

You don't really expect anyone to buy the "being worn down" line, do you?  Both sides have more money than the average 2nd world nation at their disposal.  Republicans are losing the battles because they hitched their wagons to the wrong (or non-sustainable, more accurately) horses.  "Provide their own" answers would be a great strategy for them, but their answers are appealing to a rapidly diminishing base.

My point was that neither party in Congress should be providing answers for the entire country.  Alabama is vastly different from Oregon.  Why should anyone in Oregon have a say as to what goes on in Alabama?

And I'm not excusing Republicans from this either.  They're offering their own answers, which are asinine in their own right.  Mainly, they're tried to be the moral, General Patton, Christian saviors since Gingrich called out Clinton for smoking cigars in other people's orifices. 

The point is that we are not a whole.  We do not need nor truly want a federal government that decides what is best for the country.  We are a bunch of vastly different parts who require different services and needs.  We're being forced to act like a unified single entity through 24/7 media with an agenda and a now very vocal, very large group of politicians with personal ideologies that don't work for everyone. 

And what you said is exactly what I think is the problem.  "Provide their own answers" would not work.  They shouldn't be providing answers for the whole country for every little life event possible.  They are caving in to that pressure.  And it's not recent.  I'm not saying this is an Obama administration-led event.  This has been going on for decades. 

We need less government intrusion from the federal level and more from the state level.  We representatives in Washington that represent Alabama or your own state and not representatives who are leading the federal charge. 

Here's a question - why do our congressmen spend so much time in Washington?  How much time does Spencer Bachus spend in the state of Alabama?  Or Pelosi in San Francisco?  How could they really be in touch with what their local constituents truly want and not just what wins them votes?

We have the technology to keep representatives at home for the majority of the year.  Video phone and video conferences would be just fine for most of the conversations held in DC.

[GH2001]

My point was that neither party in Congress should be providing answers for the entire country.  Alabama is vastly different from Oregon.  Why should anyone in Oregon have a say as to what goes on in Alabama?

And I'm not excusing Republicans from this either.  They're offering their own answers, which are asinine in their own right.  Mainly, they're tried to be the moral, General Patton, Christian saviors since Gingrich called out Clinton for smoking cigars in other people's orifices. 

The point is that we are not a whole.  We do not need nor truly want a federal government that decides what is best for the country.  We are a bunch of vastly different parts who require different services and needs.  We're being forced to act like a unified single entity through 24/7 media with an agenda and a now very vocal, very large group of politicians with personal ideologies that don't work for everyone. 

And what you said is exactly what I think is the problem.  "Provide their own answers" would not work.  They shouldn't be providing answers for the whole country for every little life event possible.  They are caving in to that pressure.  And it's not recent.  I'm not saying this is an Obama administration-led event.  This has been going on for decades. 

We need less government intrusion from the federal level and more from the state level.  We representatives in Washington that represent Alabama or your own state and not representatives who are leading the federal charge. 

Here's a question - why do our congressmen spend so much time in Washington?  How much time does Spencer Bachus spend in the state of Alabama?  Or Pelosi in San Francisco?  How could they really be in touch with what their local constituents truly want and not just what wins them votes?

We have the technology to keep representatives at home for the majority of the year.  Video phone and video conferences would be just fine for most of the conversations held in DC.

They should IF it's delegated in the constitution as a federal responsibility. Anything else? You're right, 10th amendment and delegate it back to the states.