The State of the Union Address was more of the same—class warfare rhetoric coupled with Congress-bashing. But was President Obama's speech accurate?
The fact checkers were out in full force after the SOTU speech on Tuesday. Josh Gerstein and Darren Samuelsohn from Politico noted that during the address, the "truth sometimes got stretched in the process." Glenn Kessler from The Washington Post used phrases like "cherry-picking" (to describe Obama's "6 million new jobs" claim, as well as his claim that "manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three"), "lacks context" (regarding Obama's claim that America buys "less foreign oil" than 20 years ago), and "debatable" (regarding deficit spending).
Politico points to Obama's statement, "I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change..." as a non-starter, as there is no will in the Congress, or by the American people, to create "cap-and-trade" type legislation. This nod to global warming alarmists is just that. Further, Obama says, "But if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will," so, as the authors point out, movement on "climate change" initiatives will most likely come from "executive order[s] and regulations." Executive orders used to impose changes that were never debated by elected officials, do not reflect the will of the people, but use taxpayer money, are unconstitutional and should be challenged.
President Obama also made the claim, "Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs." One does not need Politico to know that this statement is dubious, at best. As pointed out by Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press, the data simply does not support the president's claim. He writes, "The jury is still out on whether Obama's health care overhaul will reduce the growth of health care costs." With the recession, health care costs have declined, but how ObamaCare has influenced those numbers remains to be seen.
Politico also tackles Obama's business crushing, class warfare message that "Working folks shouldn't have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up while CEO pay has never been higher," as he pushed for a $9.00 minimum wage. Politico points out that in 2008, the president campaigned for the minimum wage to be $9.50 by 2011, but "he did little to deliver on the pledge as the economic crisis unfolded." Again, during a recession, with small businesses already suffering, political will for raising the minimum wage is surely low.
During the SOTU address, Obama blamed Congress for yet another government-manufactured crisis, the sequester (starting March 1st and triggering $1.2 trillion across-the-board spending cuts), even though "sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama's White House," as pointed out by PolitiFact. Overall, it seems that the State of the Union Address may have been carefully crafted, but was way off the mark.
Image Source: John Shinkle/Politico
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 147 ( 1 removed by Renee Nal )
Every American who loves Her should have felt nothing but utter contempt in their Heart...and a tear in their Eye.
President Obama had them all standing on their feet during his speech to the nation. He's just a smooth operator. Moving forward, oh yeah. Love it!
Thank you, Renee.
Yep! Ain't that the truth!!!
They cant argue against what he said.
Boehner doesn't count...He is just as screwed up as the rest of Washington...
Hey Vic, he may be on the b-team but he's the b-team leader!
There is a divide between the Ruling Elite and THE PEOPLE...it has little to do with any of the Brokers in D.C. Boehner no more has the Constitution and the interests of the People that he "serves" in mind than do the Marxists in the White House.
Ask any True American (yes; I said TRUE AMERICAN) of their support and confidence in establishment pubicans, and you'll have a clue.
Tell me Mark, what strawman argument have I made again?
"Leftists like you may love to hang the "pube" albatross about the necks of Conservatives, but you obviously understand LITTLE."
What the hell are you on about? Pube albatross'?
"There is a divide between the Ruling Elite and THE PEOPLE"
I agree to a point Mark but you are so far out on the fringe that philosophically, everyone seems to be at a distance, even people from you're own party.
"Ask any True American (yes; I said TRUE AMERICAN) of their support and confidence in establishment pubicans, and you'll have a clue."
No true Scotsman eh?
LMFAO
Are you going to explain what a "pube" albatross is or not?
Gosh darn it Mark John you dufus... *scratches knuckles on his head*
Republicans had a big vote and elected the to be their leader, you people are in denial.
http://youtu.be/ZOdn3D4xfs4
I can be simultaneously civil and didactic; if only I had a student. I'm trying to bring clarity between pube and Conservative to the whelp; but I cannot abide obtuseness and obfuscation.
Oh well thanks Mark.
There happens to be a phenomenon occurring within the Politics of this Country. Among those changes, WHICH HAVE BEEN OCCURRING OVER SEVERAL DECADES (as though you didn't know; and if you didn't, you're learning, NOW),The Republican Party, which I will now and on refer to as Pubes, have chosen to go the route of the Leftist, and all Political Elites; they no longer speak for, NOR REPRESENT, the Conservative in this Great Country. They no longer speak for Conservatives, nor do they promote that which has made this the GREATEST Country in the History of the World; American Values, and the INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS. They are the PUBES...PUBICANS...REPUBLICANS...ONTO IT, NOW???
Therefore...are you following?...therefore...the favourite game of the Leftist now, is to conflate and equate all moronic things rePUBElican, with Conservatives. Therefore, when a PUBE puke is willing to subvert the Constitution, for example, or to go along with all things SOCIALISM, Leftists merely label Conservatives who are opposed "Right Wing;" which is completely false. They do so for two reasons:
1. Because Leftists are MORONS.
2. Because the Commies who teach them their Marching Orders, and who intend to "fundamentally transform" this Representative Republic, also teach them to paint Conservatives as PUBES, in order to demonise Conservatives, the Constitution, and everything She stands for.
THAT'S what I'm on about.
GOT IT?
GOOD.
"Leftists like you may love to hang the "pube" albatross about the necks of Conservatives, but you obviously understand LITTLE."
For a guy who loves to throw around the term "strawman" a lot, you sure as hell don't know what one is.
Nothing to say about your lesson, or your Leftist obfuscation???
Some of us remember campaign Mark John, the one who lambasted Vic once or twice and any other Conservatives who'd dared to question Republican tactics, or explore possible third parties. Remember that? Now here you sit, expecting no one to notice as you put as much distance as you can between yourself and the party you've now sold out.
Can't wait for the next episode Marky.
There are no leaders in Washington, period...Either side...That is our problem...
Well technically there is, just none we like Vic.
Here is a quote that sums it up:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
OH, wait.....
"US Unfunded Liabilities" + "National Debt"=$138Trillion
not $16.5Trillion
Fight the lie with every word we write:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"...it was Obama’s negotiating team that came up with the idea for defense cuts in 2011, though they were intended to prod Congress to come up with a better deal for reining in the deficit, not as an effort to make those cuts reality."
We recently looked at a Romney campaign ad that blamed Obama for the sequester and talked to several experts about who is more responsible for the looming cuts -- Congress or the president. Some say that the Obama White House proposed sequestration, so that means Obama owns it."
And some do not. The bottom line is, Obama has been forced to play the role of a schoolteacher that threatens punishment for two groups of schoolchildren that can't get along. But unfortunately, as we've all found out, sometimes threats don't do anything to curb the immaturity, and more drastic measures need to be taken.
Paul Ryan, in August 2011.
It's only Ok to the libs. The rest of us would rather have a president that is honest and that has some integrity.
Because the people had the same wish list as Obama. Especially the people holding up pictures of their dearly departed, struck down by gun violence.
Tell em Mr. President. President Obama got this, way to go and very good speech.
Whether you want to acknowledge them or not, the people who lost loved ones are indeed part of the group "the people" that you spoke of, so your proclamation that Obama was only speaking of his wish list, and not "the people's", when they, along with congress, were applauding Obama's remarks, was one not based in fact.
I'm not sure if when you say "we" you're referring to a mouse you have in your pocket, a split personality you might have, or if you're playing to the crowd, but I was not explaining anything for anyone. When I quote a passage from a comment, it's so the reader will have a crystal clear understanding of what I'm referring to. Sorry if you mistakenly had a different impression of my intentions.
You're wrong. The proof is in the thread that I started directly beneath this one, way before you went off on your tangent. But it doesn't matter, because even if I hadn't started my own thread, I am under no obligation to do so, and not doing so doesn't diminish anything I have to say in the post comments.
"When I wish to respond to a comment, I simply leave a comment under the comment to which I am responding. People know who is being responded to simply by the placement of the comment, and most do not need their words repeated back to them to understand to whom the comment is addressing."
Setting aside your propensity to speak for other people, I'm very happy for you that you choose to respond that way. I don't.
"It is just irritating to some, as it seems kinda in your face to see their words spit back at them as if they are a target."
Sounds like a personal problem. There are people you can talk to about your feelings of victimization over something so non-threatening. Maybe they can also help you with your other habit of speaking for other people. Speak for yourself, and stop hiding behind this "we" and "they" business.
"Don't you find it rather odd that only a few on this site communicate that way?"
No, I don't. It's perfectly acceptable to me if people want to clarify which part of a comment they are responding to. But since it seems to bother you so much, and since you're always so condescending and have a holier-than-thou attitude, I'm going to make sure that I quote your comments from now on. I mean really, of all the stupid things to complain about. But hey, mission accomplished - topic diverted!
Btw, I hate to break it to you, but your good friend and author of this post also quotes people she's responding to. I guess she's also beneath the great Vic Damico! xD
I didn't. There's always an off chance that you are addressing those voices that you refer to as "we", but I took a chance that you were addressing me.
"The reference to Renee doing the same with the quotes is not the same as that for which I am speaking with you."
Yes it is. It's exactly the same.
"...but I do not, nor does Renee do it with every comment we post."
Neither do I, as evidenced at this very post. There are two examples on this post alone that refute everything that you're saying - the thread I started under this one, and the comment I made in the thread started by Maks where I did not quote anyone.
"We also write our own posts and do not rely on others to write posts and do not wait for others to put issues out there for us in order to have something to say."
Right, like how you didn't have something to say about this post that Renee wrote. You do remember that there was an actual topic, before you started in with this nonsense, right? lol
"You are an intelligent guy; you could contribute greatly to the conversations..."
I do. Those conversations just don't involve you and your deflecting tactics. And news flash: that "forum based generic communication method" is the only way we have to communicate here. It's the basis of this social media site. Your denouncement of it is utterly ridiculous.
"And no, I do not mean that as an insult."
Yeah, right.
"Why is that funny, Renee? Were they not applauding his points? Or did you just quote me so that you could make a response that said nothing at all?"
Why is that funny, Renee? Because you said the people have the same wish list as Obama!!! LOL
Were they not applauding his points? Who?
Or did you just quote me so that you could make a response that said nothing at all? explained in question #1
And why is that funny?
"Who?"
The people that were mentioned in this thread. You do read the thread before commenting, don't you?
"explained in question #1"
Not at all.
Other polls, too, show a public swing toward a carbon tax, including this one conducted for Slate magazine, which showed a carbon tax with a 56% approval rating.
Slate Magazine! LOL
Great, Stony! Does that mean they'll give up the spleef's and crack pipes? Oh, I'm certain they'll clamour to do their fair share...lot of unnecessary pollution, there!
"Slate Magazine! LOL"
America's Power! LOL
No jokes to crack about Mellman, eh?
But a congress with a 14% approval rating does.
Marxists happen to hold 2/3 of the Power in this Country, genius.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that people shouldn't be so surprised when the President gets something done that a bickering, useless congress couldn't because the will of the people commands it.
And whether or not the President does something deemed unconstitutional is up to the Supreme Court, not subjective members of social media websites. Congress can also overrule an executive order by passing legislation that would conflict with the order. But since this is a do-nothing, good-for-nothing congress that doesn't represent the will of the people, social conservatives will have to put all of their faith in the Supreme Court to do their bidding.
I don't agree with your opinion, and your attempt to demean me with the use of a sarcastic, snarky label failed.
I'm suggesting that people shouldn't be so surprised when the President gets something done that a bickering, useless congress couldn't because the will of the people commands it.
Right, because the will of the people demand drone attacks on U.S. citizens, worthless "manmade global warming" initiatives that go to Obama Cronies, and more, more, more taxes for the evil rich!
Now I am dishonest? Why insult me? Call Chuck!
So, (lol) you can tell me that I am a liar, but do not have to stand by your statement by telling me what I said that was dishonest? Ok, I get the rules now.
Where did the damn boycott go???? Let's start it up again!
Fine with me, all you have to do is start deleting my comments you don't agree with again - it's what you do best.
As if either of you would know anything about substance.
If you don't have a red phone, perhaps you can call Chuck with your Obama Phone?
I believe he has no such objective to fix or help the economy in any way. He is working to punish the those who work hard to be successful and enable those who are not. If the economy stagnates or even gets worse, that is fine with him. The media will cover for him and because he effectively (see above) has done nothing of consequence, he will not be guilty of any wrong doing. Even though the fix was with in arms reach the whole time, he just refuses to attempt anything that will work. The media refuses to hold him accountable for the things he does, so they will never hold him accountable for something he refuses to do.
The use of Czars (by Obama and past presidents) represents a single man shifting the roles of the Judicial and Legislative bodies directly to the Executive branch of our government, which voids our checks and balance system, giving the president power not granted by the Constitution. Executive orders, with their intended purpose were to be used in the event of national security or a national crisis that demands immediate attention.
If the blind would read executive order 13603 (just one example) they would see that a single man is bypassing congress and has taken control of most aspects of all that is a part of our daily lives as American citizens. The removal of our rights and freedoms is in place with that, and other executive orders and merely need to be implemented at a chosen time to change our nation to what will greatly resemble the old Soviet Union.
And yet, those too lazy to read and comprehend the words of new legislation will argue until their death about something they have not taken the time to read. Corruption, deceptions, and a lazy society are not a good recipe for success, and defending those who are working against us will guarantee failure. Anyone who believes that our nation will survive based simply upon choosing to side with the Republicans or the Democrats is basically voting for a team, not what is representative of what is needed to get us back to the true foundation of what made America great. People can blame whoever they wish, but our nation is quickly declining and facing a massive nose-dive, and if party loyalty is all that matters to some, the good of the nation will never be the focus, and the end result will be failure, with some seeing the twisted illusion that their party was viewed as being superior. If our nation fails, it will not matter who gets credit for causing that destruction.
National Defense Resources Preparedness
Signed: March 16, 2012
Federal Register page and date: 77 FR 16651, March 22, 2012
See: EO 11858, May 7, 1975; EO 12472, April 3, 1984; EO 12656, November 18, 1988
A Basic Law Established to strip the Rights Of All Americans in Peace Time Martial Laws Acts.
Desiline Victor, 102 years old waited in line over three hours determine to cast her vote for President Obama. Her determination as well as many other Americans speaks volumes to me. Ms. Desiline Victor is a true inspiration to us all.
If you don't know already, let me tell you again, "Don't let nobody turn you around."
Quick, Vic - lend me your smoke stack! I need to make a call to D.C.!
The government now has 5 hollow point bullets with your name on them and 5 with my name. Are you 110% on board with that? I am not regardless of the party in power. But you want to make this about red vs blue, well when this goes down, we all will say we voted blue and they will shoot us both.. Or do you think that you really are that special, Obama has you on that Obama Phone speed dial, and that the government has 10 bullets waiting for me and zero for you?
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -- Thomas Jefferson
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
If it does not make sense to you, you may want to ask your self, what side your on? Tyranny or Freedom. You will pick one through action or inaction. But it will be your choice.