Must see: Presidential Remarks at House Republican Conference

[Midnight Judges]

I'd agree if the GOP was the majority in Congress

Seeing that this is the smallest minority since Watergate, well its 100 percent absurd and dishonest to blame the GOP for anything.

The lack of Obama's success in 2009 lays at his feet and Democratic leadership

I agree with that. I was speaking from a political perspective. Republicans seem to have the momentum despite their utter lack of ideas. This debate only serves to vindicate Obama. Politically, it wasn't necessary for Republicans to give him that platform.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I agree with that. I was speaking from a political perspective. Republicans seem to have the momentum despite their utter lack of ideas. This debate only serves to vindicate Obama. Politically, it wasn't necessary for Republicans to give him that platform.

I suppose. But come November nobody will remember it

[Perky72]

It was good, Obama took a bit of responsibility for various things, and extended a hand (at least hypothetically, he often tried to explain why the GOP's hand wasn't worth shaking though). All in all not bad and one of Obama's best non-teleprompter engagements. And yeah, very interesting.

My biggest complaint is Art Monk Fan's though, and biggest disappointment was his apologetics for the Democratic caucus. He did repeat that many of the problems were on both sides, but dismissed more pointed criticism of problems with the Democratic leadership. Nothing at all will get done even if the GOP is more cooperative if idiots like Pelosi still feel the irrational need to force division and force polarity for polemic.

My biggest fear after Obama was elected was the terrible Democrats in Congress, and they're living up to all that fear.

[Ax]

Well let's see.

The day after championing a partial freeze on spending, the R's said,

"Shove that idea up your ass!"

Oh no, wait. That was the D's.

My bad.

The more things change...

As for this theatrical presentation, I admit I haven't watched it. Heard a bunch of it though. So far it's, same ****, different day.

All talk. From everybody in the room.

To the whole group, R and D's, I say...

Don't tell me a ****in' thing.

Show me.

Stop just moving your ****in' lips, and move your asses.

[StillUnknown]

this should definitely happen more often

[Fergasun]

Maybe he has good intentions; but if this is what Obama really thinks the Democrats are eating him for lunch... and he needs to stand up to the Democrat caucus as well. I only saw his opening remarks, and a few questions but he mis-framed everything to make the GOP look bad. Which is a stroke of political genius.

Edit: My opening line said, "He's a good liar". It should've read, he's a good politician. I don't think he's lying, but he just scored some nice political points... and in the end all mots people care about is the political game.

But I don't believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security.

- Do you think he truley believes this? Even if he did do you think Democrats believe this?

There has been, for example, broad support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda safe haven, to break the Taliban's momentum, and to train Afghan security forces. There's been broad support for disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda. And I know that we're all united in our admiration of our troops.

Is that what Obama campaigned on?

Let's start with our efforts to jumpstart the economy last winter, when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and the threat of a second Great Depression loomed large. I didn't understand then, and I still don't understand, why we got opposition in this caucus for almost $300 billion in badly needed tax cuts for the American people, or COBRA coverage to help Americans who've lost jobs in this recession to keep the health insurance that they desperately needed, or opposition to putting Americans to work laying broadband and rebuilding roads and bridges and breaking ground on new construction projects.

- Please, cheap political points.

These are serious times, and what's required by all of us -- Democrats and Republicans -- is to do what's right for our country, even if it's not always what's best for our politics.

Says the man with a large majority in Congress.

Employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they add in 2010. They'd get a tax break for increases in wages, as well. So, if you raise wages for employees making under $100,000, we'd refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increase those wages faster than inflation. It's a simple concept. It's easy to understand. It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses.

Number one, how does this help with the deficit? Number two, what other proposals is this attached to that goes against GOP ideals? Perhaps extending unemployment benefits again?

I've proposed a modest fee on the nation's largest banks and financial institutions to fully recover for taxpayers' money that they provided to the financial sector when it was teetering on the brink of collapse. And it's designed to discourage them from taking reckless risks in the future.

But I've also kept on a Federal Reserve Chair who encouraged those reckless risks and a Treasury Secretary.

If anyone here truly believes our health insurance system is working well for people, I respect your right to say so, but I just don't agree. And neither would millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who can't get coverage today or find out that they lose their insurance just as they're getting seriously ill. That's exactly when you need insurance.

Did GOP really say that the health insurance system is working well? I don't think so.

Let me close by saying this. I was not elected by Democrats or Republicans, but by the American people. That's especially true because the fastest growing group of Americans are independents. That should tell us both something. I'm ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in a spirit of goodwill. But understand, if we can't break free from partisan gridlock, if we can't move past a politics of "no," if resistance supplants constructive debate, I still have to meet my responsibilities as President.

What does that mean? You did nothing to ensure that the health care bill would be bi-partisan at this point. How is this "partisan gridlock"? His own party is gridlocking him by not matching the bipartisan rhetoric he says here. If they had reached across the aisle and picked up 5 Senators there would be a bill, in fact most likely it'd be the same bill we're going to eventually end up with. Does he really think the process of reconciliation is going to be a good path to go down?

Here's a question and answer completely dodged:

That's the question. You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President.

Jeb, with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.

I like this in the answer however... at some point the young people have to win the whole Congressional spending generational warfare right? Probably not.

The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close. Social Security we could probably fix the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan sat down together and they could figure something out. That is manageable. Medicare and Medicaid -- massive problem down the road. That's where -- that's going to be what our children have to worry about.

Continuing in the same line of discussion, very good points!

Now, I just want to point out -- and this brings me to the second problem -- when we made a very modest proposal as part of our package, our health care reform package, to eliminate the subsidies going to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, we were attacked across the board, by many on your aisle, for slashing Medicare. You remember? We're going to start cutting benefits for seniors. That was the story that was perpetrated out there -- scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors.

No, no, but here's my point. If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted, factually, from the perspective of those who disagree with it, as cutting benefits over the long term. Paul, I don't think you disagree with that, that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that's probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul's plan.

I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized, whatever proposals are put out there, as, well, you know, that's -- the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens; that the other party is doing X, Y, Z.

A stroke of genius for the Democrats. They can send their man in to finger-point and blame, and say "why aren't you being bi-partisan?" At the same time he can advocate some very moderate policies which most likely aren't going to be passed (if they hadn't been passed before).

If Obama wants his actions to match his rhetoric he needs to declare himself an *Independent* now and take on both parties in Congress for their hypocrisy, and bring in a number of moderates into his administration (perhaps some Republicans like McCain?). That would guarantee him re-election in 2012 for sure... and would be a lot better for the country... as well as changing the whole tone of political discussion around the country. If you listen to what he is saying; that's pretty much the stance he is making.

All the GOP ever seems to want to do is cut taxes... but how does that square with controlling the deficit?

[SkinsHokieFan]

All the GOP ever seems to want to do is cut taxes... but how does that square with controlling the deficit?

Excellent break down. Thumbs up to you

[IHOPSkins]

......it's a two way street........

Lets see if the DEMs (and Reps) are serious......

In a rare display of bipartisanship, a top House Democrat agreed to back a Republican lawmaker's quest for details of closed-door deals the White House made with industry insiders to produce a healthcare reform bill.....

......."What we don't know is who made a deal with whom," said Burgess, an Ob/Gyn.

The Obama administration has been criticized by some of its own supporters for what they see as reneging on a campaign promise to bring to the office an unparalleled level of transparency.

At one point, Obama even told the nation that he would welcome C-SPAN cameras into healthcare negotiations that would normally be top secret.....

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/State_of_the_Union/struck-deals-white-house-healthcare/story?id=9689680

1) The Backdoor deals need to be released by the Dems (as a starting point for further negotiations)

2) The info should NOT be released by the Reps

I would prefer to just start from scratch..."Its a New Ballgame"

[Prosperity]

Good stuff here. I wish this wasn't a "once a year" thing that it appears to be by tradition.

This needs to be a monthly thing, British style

yes I like that idea

[@DCGoldPants]

I like this idea also, I think it should happen TWICE a year. Once with each party.

Also, I think the deals with "industry" that this and the previous admin should be released. Obama and the heathcare providers, Cheney and his secret meetings with energy. I want it all out there to be picked apart.

[81artmonk]

I wonder if he is going to give this same speech to the dems too? If not, this than seems like a hand slap meeting.

[IHOPSkins]

.....Thumbs up to you

Thumbs Up?

How about Middle Finger?!

http://www.thebigfeedblog.com/2010/01/obama-flips-middle-finger-at.html

Shame on Him

[USS Redskins]

This is a bit better than his previous attempt at bipartisanship: I won and am very popular, so do what I say.

[jpyaks3]

There has been, for example, broad support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda safe haven, to break the Taliban's momentum, and to train Afghan security forces. There's been broad support for disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda. And I know that we're all united in our admiration of our troops.

Is that what Obama campaigned on?

Yes it is. That is exactly what Obama campaigned on.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Yes it is. That is exactly what Obama campaigned on.

Yup. And has been saying it for years. Before he even decided to run for president.

I really don't understand the confusion on this.

[Fergasun]

Thumbs Up?

How about Middle Finger?!

http://www.thebigfeedblog.com/2010/01/obama-flips-middle-finger-at.html

Shame on Him

Whatever, it was a cheap shot at Republicans from a Republican. When I listen to them all I hear about is "free market, blah" and "cut taxes, bleh". Well to be honest, I think there is some regulation necessary. For instance, I like some of the ideas behind the consumer finance protection agency. For instance; how about a "government regulated" standard mortgage contract; where basically all that is left to fill in is the interest rate, length, and amount. That we people realize when they are deviating from normal. Our economy was a disaster under Bush, and the Republican Congress regulating Wall Street, Fannie Me and Freddie Mac (or lack of) which lead directly to the housing bubble.

The bottom line, is that whereas I agree Obama needs to move some to the right as far as all of his government bailouts and interventions (which all got broad bipartisan support and started under Bush), the Republicans have to realize there is no "free market"; that govenrment action or inaction acts as signals to the market, and their inaction served as a signal for Wall St. to go crazy, lever up, throw a party and now 10 years later ask for huge bailout money which is undeserved.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Thumbs Up?

How about Middle Finger?!

http://www.thebigfeedblog.com/2010/01/obama-flips-middle-finger-at.html

Shame on Him

Oh, I just left the last line in as a response because I didn't feel like quoting a big block of text

I agreed with 100 percent of Ferg's post

[IHOPSkins]

Whatever......

...I agreed with 100 percent of Ferg's post

Sorry guys....My fault

I was just looking for an excuse to plug the Obama vid...."Thumb----Finger"

Ergo the

I appreciate your comments, and my comment was not a comment on your comments as much as it was a comment on mine

[Ellis]

I want to talk about a specific section of Obama's Address to the Republicans which he first mentioned in his SOTU speech and gave more detail here...

So, today, in line with what I stated at the State of the Union, I've proposed a new jobs tax credit for small business. And here's how it would work. Employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they add in 2010. They'd get a tax break for increases in wages, as well. So, if you raise wages for employees making under $100,000, we'd refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increase those wages faster than inflation. It's a simple concept. It's easy to understand. It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses.

Now, let's talk about this...

If my math is wrong, correct me.

We'll use small numbers to keep it simple. I will not account for all of the other state taxes and withholdings that have nothing to do with what Obama is talking about so that the discussion can remain focused.

Let's say an employer has an employee making $20,000/year. The employee would be paying 7.5% in Fed tax. The employer would be matching that at 7.5%. Therefore, the employee would have $1,500 withheld for fed taxes and the employer would match that. So just using some quick simply math, this employee costs the employer $21,500.

Now on to Obama's proposal. Not all small businesses are in a comfortable position to hire new employees. However, it's a fair statement to say that some are in a position to take care of their own. Obama is offering a tax break to employers who raise wages for current employee's. His proposal says that he will refund PART of their payroll tax ABOVE the rate of inflation. In other words, Obama's plan ONLY affects the taxes that the Employer pays for his employee.

So let's make up a number to represent a rate of Inflation. A fair number. Let's say 2%.

And now we'll give the employer a number to repesent the percentage of raise he gave to his employee. A fair number. Let's say a 5% raise.

$20,000 + 5% raise = $21,000.

Employer's Fed tax contribution = $1,500 (old salary) + $75 (for the new raise) = $1,575 (Fed tax of new wage of employee).

Obama's idea would only affect $75 of that above scenario.

And since the employer only gave a raise 3% above inflation, then the employer would only save $45.

Therefore... an Employer has to spend an extra $1,075 just to save $45.

This doesn't look remotely motivating for small business employer's to embrace.

I'm not trying to be a Debbie-Downer about Obama's proposal. I just think he needs to find a more generous way for Employer's to help their employee's with raises that would be equally beneficial to the employer. Not all small businesses can or need to hire new employee's which leaves small businesses at a disadvantage of benefitting from tax relief.

HOWEVER... if I'm completely wrong... then someone please explain what he means regarding the tax relief for employer's giving raises to current employee's.

[ljs]

Huge mistake for the House Republicans to invite him. Even bigger mistake for House Republicans to agree to have this on camera. Obama just ate their lunch.

talk is cheap- actions speak louder than words....so unless I see some reala action-by EVERYONE...I don't buy it for a minute. Would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Fergasun]

Oh, I just left the last line in as a response because I didn't feel like quoting a big block of text

I agreed with 100 percent of Ferg's post

Sorry, I thought I had ticked you off with the thing about all Republicans do is talk about tax cuts which doesn't square with their "concern" for the deficit.

But really, I actually don't understand given Obama's rhetoric why he doesn't just go Independent and give the finger to both parties. He would score mucho points, and he would be free to take on all the issues he talks on here.

[twa]

How about this remark by O?

The last thing I will say, though -- let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge. [emphasis added]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/29/obama_health_care_bill_might_have_violated_pledge_on_keeping_some_doctors_and_insurers.html

[Burgold]

How about this remark by O?

if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge. [emphasis added]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/29/obama_health_care_bill_might_have_violated_pledge_on_keeping_some_doctors_and_insurers.html

Boldly honest and I think it bares on why the President is still liked and the Dems and Repubs of Congress are so distrusted. Hopefully, they can make this sucker better. Health reform is needed. Universal is a worthy goal. I wouldn't mind if this took three years to pass if it took them that long to try to get it close to right (we'll never know if it is right until it is implemented and not even really then. It will take ten years [with minor adjustments along the way] to know what we've done to ourselves) It is worth the effort and it is worth the cost of a few politicians' jobs.

[twa]

Boldly honest would be to refuse to sign a bill that violates a pledge,not simply admitting the obvious.

We will see since there are obviously not enough votes for him to vote present on it......leadership choices define ya:evilg:

[Burgold]

He did actually state that there were certain measures that would force him to refuse to sign the bill and he's signed nothing as of yet. It would have been really interesting if the Bill would have passed with a super majority of 60-40 and then Obama vetoed it only to have six Republicans cross lines to embarrass the President by overriding the veto.

Interestingly, I can easily imagine such a scenario.