Skip to main content

View Diary: Why everyone's attempt to grade the speech gets an "F" (268 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As generous guys, that is who they are (5+ / 0-)

    You (just you, nobody else) fully understands Obama's 33th dimensional chess.

    I deal with facts not with appears as politically expedient. Obama could have challenged the status quo. He chose not to.

    You can clap. I will be critical.

    •  Obama is behaving exactly as a poltician (20+ / 0-)

      who needs to win over the middle would be expected to behave.  

      What he's trying to accomplish is pretty simple for anyone who's willing to look at the big picture.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:43:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The big picture (4+ / 0-)

        is that unemployment is still unacceptably high, and without a solid plan to address that, America's not going to be in a good place in 2012.

        I listened to the speech last night, and I didn't hear much of a plan to solve the big picture with regard to unemployment. Yes, he talked about the "sputnik moment" and all that -- it will help to invest more (but what about the spending freeze?) in infrastructure and new technology. But how does he plan to get people back to work in 2011?

        I still would love to know.

        "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive...death. I'll eat the pie." Homer as Solomon

        by Lost Left Coaster on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:54:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The infrastructure spending would be a logical (4+ / 0-)

          place to begin.

          Realistically, there's not a lot the Preznit can do with Republicans controlling the federal purse strings.

          At some point, the private sector needs to do its part and start hiring.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:00:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The infrastructure plan would be great (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            It's tough to know how that fits in with this spending freeze he talked about last night. I acknowledge that one couldn't expect to hear every detail last night, but I still find it a puzzling contradiction. Does Obama want to spend money or not?

            But the private sector isn't going to start hiring without an increase in aggregate demand. Or, at least, they're not going to hire enough to get us out of this pit we're in.

            We still need aggressive government action in the economy. And I fully acknowledge that it will be extremely difficult with the Republicans in the House. No doubt. But approaching 2012, people need to know what the Obama Administration believes is the best way to fix the economy. That way they can vote for it.

            "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive...death. I'll eat the pie." Homer as Solomon

            by Lost Left Coaster on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:06:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Spending freeze is a gimmick phrase (3+ / 0-)

              Private sector can boost its own demand by hiring workers.  

              The contrast will be crystal clear in the upcoming months about who wants to do something and who wants to go backwards.  Republicans, stupidly, have already ceded the middle ground.

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:11:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Surrrrre, businesses always hire more workers (0+ / 0-)

                to increase demand. Not. It works the other way: businesses hire workers to meet increased demand.

                The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                by accumbens on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:30:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Businesses hire based on projected demand (0+ / 0-)

                  They realize, as opposed to those who prefer simplistic economic models, that demand is part of a feedback mechanism. If they project that other companies are also going to hire in the near-term, therefore stimulating demand, they will be comfortable in hiring more workers.

                  One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble ... Murray Head

                  by virginislandsguy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 07:50:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree, businesses can be motivated to hire more (0+ / 0-)

                    more workers if they think there will be an increase in demand.  I also agree that the projection would be based in part on whether they see other companies(especially competitors and supply chain) hiring.  But they do not hire workers in order to increase demand.  That is like pushing on a string.

                    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                    by accumbens on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:53:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Political expediency is THE FACT (13+ / 0-)

      All policy relies upon gaining and holding power.

      So you are now hoist by your own petard. To accomplish anything, he must be popular. If you say he won't accomplish very much with the agenda laid out - he'd accomplish still less without support from voters.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:47:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not a "great" President's profile. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        So he's "fine" in a time when we actually require "great".

        Political expediency was James Buchanan's m.o. and that didn't work out so well for him or the country.

        •  It's a reasonable profile for a first term (6+ / 0-)

          president with limited tools. I would expect a WHOLE lot more if we had supermajorities in both houses, or if there were any republicans at all capable of compassion. And I think we'll see a very different Obama if he gets a second term.

          "The NRA should just change their name to the Assassin's Lobby, because that's what they are." -- Bill Maher

          by frankzappatista on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:36:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The great ones (6+ / 0-)

          worked to remain popular.

          Lincoln makes the top of everyone's list. Observe the efforts he exerted to convince voters that the war was about preserving the Union, not ending slavery - because the one was more popular than the other.

          The "right" thing would have been to make it a moral crusade against the great evil. Instead Lincoln was - dare I say it - pragmatic and moderate in his choice of words. While fighting to the death of hundreds of thousands to preserve the Union and, yes, end slavery.

          In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

          by blue aardvark on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:47:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Being expedient used to be an insult. Funny, how (0+ / 0-)

          times have changed.

          The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

          by accumbens on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:31:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  We're gonna have to put those goalposts (0+ / 0-)

          on wheels, you're moving them around so much. So, anything short of great in your book is fail. Perhaps your teachers should have used that standard on you.

          Speaking of teachers, you must have had the same ones who taught Michele Bachmann history because comparing Pres. Obama to James Buchanan is beyond the pale.

          One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble ... Murray Head

          by virginislandsguy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:03:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Are cynical and critical the same thing? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland, gramofsam1

      I mean that in a very real way.  

      What some view as critical, I am beginning to see as cynical.  

      I think critical analysis gets things done, but cynical analysis confirms a bias that already exists, and doesn't get anything done.  

      Do you feel like it's cynicism?  And do you feel like cynicism gets things done?

      forecasters of disasters show proofs that show they're right, but you can block out anything counting each fluorescent light...

      by otto on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:19:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you are confusing "being critical" with (0+ / 0-)

        "critical theory/analysis."  On can be both critical and cynical or either separately.  At least that's how I see it.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:33:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I understand that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          American in Kathmandu

          I'm not confusing anything, I'm asking whether cynicism is different than criticism, because cynicism is a completely unproductive and wholly emotional response to the situation, whereas criticism is a productive and more likely to mesh with the idea of rational discourse.  

          forecasters of disasters show proofs that show they're right, but you can block out anything counting each fluorescent light...

          by otto on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 06:40:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, I understand. You didn't mean "critical (0+ / 0-)

            analysis" in the way I thought.  As to what I see as the difference between "cynical" and "critical":

            For one, "cynicism" and "cynical" refer to a state or disposition, whereas "criticism" and "critical" refers to an act.  But given that, I don't know what it means to have and analysis that's cynical.  It would be like "hunger analysis" or "happy analysis." That said, both critics and cynics could be analytical and fair minded. For that matter, both cynics and critics can be emotional.  Also, cynics can be critical, and critics can be cynical, making it impossible to know who is capable of "rational discourse."  In short, I don't know that it matters whether you can identify cynicism or criticism - or critics or cynics - in order to have a productive and rational discussion.      

            The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

            by accumbens on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 09:36:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whatever (0+ / 0-)

              It seems like you're purposely missing the point to avoid discussing it.  

              Have a good one.

              forecasters of disasters show proofs that show they're right, but you can block out anything counting each fluorescent light...

              by otto on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 06:59:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site