President Obama's 2015 State of the Union Address

[s0crates]

President Obama’s State of the Union Address — Remarks As Prepared for Delivery

"Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans:

We are fifteen years into this new century. Fifteen years that dawned with terror touching our shores; that unfolded with a new generation fighting two long and costly wars; that saw a vicious recession spread across our nation and the world. It has been, and still is, a hard time for many.

But tonight, we turn the page.

Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999. Our unemployment rate is now lower than it was before the financial crisis. More of our kids are graduating than ever before; more of our people are insured than ever before; we are as free from the grip of foreign oil as we’ve been in almost 30 years.

Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over. Six years ago, nearly 180,000 American troops served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, fewer than 15,000 remain. And we salute the courage and sacrifice of every man and woman in this 9/11 Generation who has served to keep us safe. We are humbled and grateful for your service.

America, for all that we’ve endured; for all the grit and hard work required to come back; for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this:

The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong.

At this moment — with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry, and booming energy production — we have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth. It’s now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next fifteen years, and for decades to come.

Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?

Will we approach the world fearful and reactive, dragged into costly conflicts that strain our military and set back our standing? Or will we lead wisely, using all elements of our power to defeat new threats and protect our planet?

Will we allow ourselves to be sorted into factions and turned against one another — or will we recapture the sense of common purpose that has always propelled America forward?

In two weeks, I will send this Congress a budget filled with ideas that are practical, not partisan. And in the months ahead, I’ll crisscross the country making a case for those ideas.

So tonight, I want to focus less on a checklist of proposals, and focus more on the values at stake in the choices before us.

. . .

"

https://medium.com/@WhiteHouse/president-obamas-state-of-the-union-address-remarks-as-prepared-for-delivery-55f9825449b2

Thoughts?

My first take: I like the free community college idea a lot. Any chance the GOP goes for it?

[s0crates]

Here is video (starting at 5:00:00):

The Republican response can be found here:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?323873-1/republican-response-state-union-address

[88Comrade2000]

^_^ -_- <_<

 

Didn't watch it and don't care what he said.  The only thing that will happen these next 2 years is that the Dems and Repubs will try to set the debate for the 2016 elections.  Obama, I assumed proposed stuff, he knows has no chance of passing. He's just setting up the issues for his successor whether that is Hillary or someone else.  The Republicans will pass stuff, knowing Obama will be whipping ou the veto pen.  They are just framing the debate for 2016.

 

 

To bad the country has to rot 2 mores years. 

[Larry]

Dang, s0c. Reading that intro makes me remember the Obama I first voted for. The one who I thought was JFK. (I've since concluded that what I got, was more like Jimmy Carter).

[Bonez3]

Community College idea... BS

2.5 'earning it'? If my kids brought home a 2.5 from college I'm sitting them down and handing them the bill.

Oh yea, and how is this possible? Lets tax.... Pay your own way Mr. and Mrs. C+

Ridiculous

[tshile]

i thought it was a good speech for the first 20-30 minutes before it turned into style over substance. i was a little disappointed there wasn't a real focus on handling the debt, because it's still fixable but i don't know how much longer that'll be true. though i tuned out the last 10 minutes so maybe he addressed it there?

i like the tax, infrastructure, net neutrality, trade, and polices to continue the reversal of outsourcing. i'm hoping all the nasa speak means raising their funds...

eh on community college and child care moves. we need to pay down debt and cut spending before we add more programs. i think education is important but i can't help but think the rules around the community college part will be awful.

no on minimum wage increase. it's not supposed to fund a family, his 'try living on 15k a year' quip shows there's a complete disconnect on the two sides in that regard.

curious on the foreign policy implications.

the real problem is i have zero faith the good ideas will actually happen. i'd love to think the last 6 years of garbage would lead them to think they need to do something different, but i just don't see it. that goes for both the republicans and obama, they both share in the blame for that.

[Burgold]

Dang, s0c. Reading that intro makes me remember the Obama I first voted for. The one who I thought was JFK. (I've since concluded that what I got, was more like Jimmy Carter).

I strongly suspect that Obama will be one of those Presidents who ages well in history. People will look back at what happened over eight years and give him credit for what's been accomplished (perhaps unfairly). People will look back at how close we were to total economic collapse while engaged in a two front war and how we emerged with a stronger economy, the first steps towards universal health care, and improved our energy production so that we became number 1 in the world in both oil and gas and say... That was one of our better Presidents.

 

I suspect that impression will be the norm in about 50 - 75 years.  I think he'll be looked at as a President on the 2nd tier.  Not the Washington, Lincoln, FDR tier, but probably in the Reagan, Kennedy, Teddy R. class.

 

Imagine what might have done if he had a Congress that was literate enough not to think that compromise was a four letter word. America would be in much better or perhaps much worse shape.

[Burgold]

no on minimum wage increase. it's not supposed to fund a family, his 'try living on 15k a year' quip shows there's a complete disconnect on the two sides in that regard.

Actually, I think it is.  Not living well, but it's supposed to be enough that you can get a roof over your head and enough food in your belly to survive.  No car. No movies. No booze. No parties. It's the minimum. 

 

It's meant to be a survivable wage and not the "least we can get away with paying teenagers who want date money" wage.  As far as I'm and probably most are concerned those kids just hunting for spending cash can be paid on the cheap or very cheap, but most studies find that the vast majority of people on minimum wage are adults trying to make a living.

[tshile]

Actually, I think it is.  Not living well, but it's supposed to be enough that you can get a roof over your head and enough food in your belly to survive.  No car. No movies. No booze. No parties. It's the minimum. 

 

It's meant to be a survivable wage and not the "least we can get away with paying teenagers who want date money" wage.  As far as I'm and probably most are concerned those kids just hunting for spending cash can be paid on the cheap or very cheap, but most studies find that the vast majority of people on minimum wage are adults trying to make a living.

 

It is a survivable wage. It's also an entry level. You're not supposed to be 35 years old with 2 kids making minimum wage. The idea that I should pay more because someone else wound up in that situation irritates me - and I've been saying taxes need to go up (for everyone) for two years now so it's not a 'no new taxes for me ever' mentality (though this would be through increased cost of goods, not new taxes, i get that)

 

If I had to pick between increased minimum wage and funding community college for everyone, give me funding community college for everyone. (I'm not really a fan of either...) At least there's a better return on investment there for us.

 

I don't want the cost of my stuff going up because a group of people in this country can't get past minimum wage jobs so we made laws increasing their pay to a 'living wage.' Sorry.

[skinsmarydu]

I would humbly submit that not everyone is equally blessed with upward mobility opportunities.   A family that has spent generations in poverty will have a harder time digging out of it.  Raising the minimum wage will help.

[Burgold]

We're not far off on this, Tshille except while we agree it is a survivable wage and I agree with you that it is an entry wage, I also see many 35 year olds stuck in those jobs with few other honest options.  That wage ought to be enough to allow them to survive and if stretched maybe their kid. I am not unrealistic enough to say that the very poor should not be allowed to have children. I am also not unrealistic enough to think that there should be multiple minimum wages based on your family condition.  Businessmen are in business not as a community service, but to earn money and give themselves the lifestyle they want.

 

Somewhere though, there's a happy medium.  Wage stagnation, not just on the minimum side, has been a huge problem. Compare the rate of inflation of items (milk, gas, movies) to wage increases and you'll find that employers have not been keeping up.

[MattFancy]

I would humbly submit that not everyone is equally blessed with upward mobility opportunities.   A family that has spent generations in poverty will have a harder time digging out of it.  Raising the minimum wage will help.

 

I don't think it's that easy. I'm all for fair wages, but the problem will be inflation. If we raise the pay of minimum wage workers, then other prices start to go up. Think that $1.19 burger for McDonald's is overpriced now? Wait until they have to pay their workers $10/hr.

 

I feel for those people that work multiple jobs just to get by. But just raising what they get paid won't fix everything unfortunately.

[Kilmer17]

He's still a fantastic orator and story teller

[tshile]

We're not far off on this, Tshille except while we agree it is a survivable wage and I agree with you that it is an entry wage, I also see many 35 year olds stuck in those jobs with few other honest options.  That wage ought to be enough to allow them to survive and if stretched maybe their kid. I am not unrealistic enough to say that the very poor should not be allowed to have children. I am also not unrealistic enough to think that there should be multiple minimum wages based on your family condition.  Businessmen are in business not as a community service, but to earn money and give themselves the lifestyle they want.

 

Somewhere though, there's a happy medium.  Wage stagnation, not just on the minimum side, has been a huge problem. Compare the rate of inflation of items (milk, gas, movies) to wage increases and you'll find that employers have not been keeping up.

I would humbly submit that not everyone is equally blessed with upward mobility opportunities. A family that has spent generations in poverty will have a harder time digging out of it. Raising the minimum wage will help.

Here's the thing - every time I see this conversation come up I see the sensationalized arguments come up and the meat of the subject be completely neglected. I'm not talking about either of your posts in this thread - I'm talking about the political narratives that seem to dominate most people's minds. We see them on TV, in the newspaper, etc.

 

Here's what people are missing:

 

Automation - it's growing, it's coming, it's going to be here one day. The people that are going to be affected the most are the low income laborers. We're not preparing for it. Raising minimum wage doesn't fix the actual issue here, if anything it's likely going to contribute to increase the rate at which automatic arrives and is adapted in certain industries.

 

The narrative simply doesn't resonate with what some people experience - I don't know anyone working hard that makes minimum wage. Not one person. Every person I know that works hard made it past minimum wage before they turned 20 (this may be a function of where I live, I recognize that, but my point is the narrative of hard working people that can't get better than minimum wage doesn't resonate with me.) This includes illegal immigrants that I used to work with (believe it or not, not all of them only have jobs because they can be paid under the table below minimum wage, some of them have jobs and are paid above minimum wage because they work hard.) What I do know are people that work minimum wage jobs because they made a calculated decision and the tradeoffs were worth it to them (even if they are misguided in my opinion.)

 

Two examples - I have a family member that works minimum wage because she has two kids in high school, the job is close, low stress, and gives her the flexibility to take off when a kid is sick and to see them to school and home from school. She has a formal education and experience in a nursing type environment (which pays well.) She chooses to work a low page desk job filing papers and answering phones because of the lifestyle it provides. Her husband makes enough money to allow that. She deserves a raise why? I deserve to to pay more why? So she can further enjoy her intentional decision? Garbage.

I have another family member that works for minimum wage (slightly above) at walmart. She has two kids. She graduated from dental hygiene school. She stays at walmart because walmart pays her just enough that she's still under the limit and she receives food stamps, healthcare for her children, and housing. When she does the math, getting a job in her field would put her above that line and cause a giant net loss in total benefits to her family. Paying out of pocket for food, healthcare, and rent means her disposable income goes down. I've had conversations with her about this, she cannot understand the (in my opinion) enormous benefits of getting out of a low paying job and welfare dependence, she has no long term thought ability. She deserves a raise? I deserve to pay more for it? Garbage.

 

Anecdotal? Absolutely. But these people exist. Just like hard working people exist.

 

I have sympathies for people that struggle to provide for their family. Increasing minimum wage doesn't fix any of the problems.

 

At best it provides temporary relief to these people until the economy adjusts to accommodate the higher pay (who do you think is going to pay for the increase? it's not going to come out of the pockets of executives...) The floor is still the floor, even if you raise the floor. It does nothing for the potential, impending job crisis due to automation.

 

Because it doesn't ask the real question and try to get at real solutions - why are there so many people that have so little value in the economy, and how do we fix it?

 

Giving them a raise in 2015 isn't the answer that question. It just isn't.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Bootstraps are yesterdays news.  It's all about the Bread Bags now!

[Burgold]

 

 

Here's what people are missing:

 

Automation - it's growing, it's coming, it's going to be here one day. The people that are going to be affected the most are the low income laborers. We're not preparing for it. Raising minimum wage doesn't fix the actual issue here, if anything it's likely going to contribute to increase the rate at which automatic arrives and is adapted in certain industries.

I've been thinking about this a lot.  Honestly, the only solution is to redefine what we mean by productive. Once we get to the stage (probably within 20 years) or automated cars, we will no longer need truckers, bus drivers or taxi drivers. That'll happen slowly, but it will happen. Look how many of our grocery lines are automated these days. Those used to be clerks.  Offices are lucky to have one secretary these days (who's usually a receptionist). Automation is going to change how we live and we ought to start thinking about what that means.

 

One thing it may mean is that what comes next won't require people!  Every other economic shift, the workplace shifted from A to B. That may not happen this time.  There may be no B.

 

Do we create three day work weeks, so more people can get a job? Do we accept the idea that 30% unemployment is healthy and normal? We need to develop a totally new paradigm or philosophy when it comes to what it means to be a productive member of society. 

 

Maybe this is a thought for a hundred years in the future or maybe it's right around the corner, but we ought to be making plans.

[skinsmarydu]

Bootstraps are yesterdays news.  It's all about the Bread Bags now!

Gotta get ready to walk through that hog slop, huh?  (hubby  came up to check on me, I was laughing so hard when I read your post I damn near choked myself coughing)

 

...and my post never said raising the minimum wage would fix anything.  I said it would help. 

[Going Commando]

It was a good speech. Outlined the accomplishments of his policies and established the mainstream progressive policy vision for the future. Middle Class Economics was his "Military Industrial Complex" moment. That idea and phrasing are going to stick. The policy ideas contained within have powerful populist appeal. The whole agenda was well packaged and couched. The president staked out most of the best political ground for Democrats. Paid sick leave. Paid maternity leave. Increased minimum wage. Free community college. Closing tax loopholes and raising fees for big banks and the wealthy. Immigration reform that will immediately stop breaking up families by deporting parents with American children or undocumented immigrants that came here as children. All of these positions are winners because they will have overwhelming popular support. These are things Democrats will run and win elections on.

The Republican Rebuttal was an illustration of how bankrupt the GoP policy agenda really is. The only claim they've staked out for themselves was the Keystone pipeline. If that and passing some trade agreements are all the GoP really has on it's agenda, then they've got nothing and are going to get destroyed in 2016. Especially since the optics of Keystone are going to be negatively effected following the pipeline spill in the Yellowstone River over the weekend. The GoP has been totally reactionary since the decline of neoconservatism as the dominant policy ideology of the party. They've been in reaction mode to everything the Obama administration has done for six years and it looks weaker than ever now that the administration's progressive policies are becoming status quo and the country is healthy again.

[tshile]

I've been thinking about this a lot.  Honestly, the only solution is to redefine what we mean by productive. Once we get to the stage (probably within 20 years) or automated cars, we will no longer need truckers, bus drivers or taxi drivers. That'll happen slowly, but it will happen. Look how many of our grocery lines are automated these days. Those used to be clerks.  Offices are lucky to have one secretary these days (who's usually a receptionist). Automation is going to change how we live and we ought to start thinking about what that means.

 

One thing it may mean is that what comes next won't require people!  Every other economic shift, the workplace shifted from A to B. That may not happen this time.  There may be no B.

 

Do we create three day work weeks, so more people can get a job? Do we accept the idea that 30% unemployment is healthy and normal? We need to develop a totally new paradigm or philosophy when it comes to what it means to be a productive member of society. 

 

Maybe this is a thought for a hundred years in the future or maybe it's right around the corner, but we ought to be making plans.

 

Agree completely. To tackle the problem without creating a serious crisis where people are hurt, and hurt badly, requires thinking out side the box and having a plan before it becomes a crisis.

 

Not something The American People are very good at right now (you can blame politicians, but we're the ones putting them there, so...)

 

It's going to require completely rethinking what it means to be successful and contribute to our society. Right now our frame work is -> work hard and learn (formally or informally, academically or training, whatever) so you can be more valuable (work harder, more efficient, etc) and make more money -> be better off in society. The real problem is that the two controlling parties (and their supporters) are hung up on a few catch phrases and seem incapable of actually discussing the issue. Arguments about morals, rights, socialism, etc all get the way of the required spit-balling of ideas to get to work on a plan.

 

Finding a way to make the lower-skilled/educated parts of our society more skilled and more educated is a good first step in dragging out how long it takes for this crisis to arrive. Keep moving them to more difficult, better paying jobs as the easier, lower paying ones become automated. But it doesn't 'solve' the problem. I have ideas for it but that's for another thread

[twa]

bread and circus

 

[tshile]

The mentions of trade seemed to be in regards to the trans pacific partnership. Anyone wiling to explain the two sides to me? I don't get what all the fuss is about... Or just provide links to good articles, I love reading, it's just hard to find objective articles on certain subjects anymore...

[Popeman38]

If CC is free for everyone, you just devalued CC. It will become the new HS, and soon enough the standards will begin to lower.

I hate this idea. I would he way more supportive of federal grants to cover technical/vocational schools the US is sorely lacking in. Plumbing. Electrical. Welding. Tradecraft.

Don't devalue CC, something the working class is already using to better themselves.

[PeterMP]

At best it provides temporary relief to these people until the economy adjusts to accommodate the higher pay (who do you think is going to pay for the increase? it's not going to come out of the pockets of executives...) The floor is still the floor, even if you raise the floor. It does nothing for the potential, impending job crisis due to automation.

 

Because it doesn't ask the real question and try to get at real solutions - why are there so many people that have so little value in the economy, and how do we fix it?

 

Giving them a raise in 2015 isn't the answer that question. It just isn't.

 

First, this post by and large represents a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

 

Costs to consumers for the vast majority of goods we buy are primarily not a function of production costs.

 

Costs for most things are determined primarily by supply and demand.

 

If Walmart was forced to pay their minimum wage workers more, there is no real reason to believe that would have a significant impact on the costs of most of their products unless there was also a concomitant shift in supply and demand.

 

What would primarily happen (given no shift in supply and demand) is that Walmart the company would make less money, which may or may not result in other people in the company making less money.

 

Having these types of conversations without at least this level of understanding is useless.

 

But even if that was the case, as should be obvious by your own post, you realistically ARE paying for those workers because you are paying for things like food stamps and other associated social benefits to them (unless you fall into the class of people that aren't net paying taxes, which doesn't sound like the case).

 

Even IF the prices would go up to cover the increase in minimum wage, there is no real reason to believe there would be a net negative affect on your money.

 

At some level it would be better because at least you'd have some say on where your money would be going (at least in terms of which company).

 

Second, I'm not sure what state your relative lives in, but I suspect she'd done a miscalculation with respect to staying in a minimum wage job.  The nature of Chip programs is that they tend to be a good deal for people of even significant incomes.

 

Lastly let me end by saying that I'm actually not a big supported of raising the minimum wage. At best the academic research on the topic is mixed (mostly due to job lost due to increased out sourcing and other things like that, not because of any concept related to a significant trickle down affect on prices).

[mrcunning15]

If CC is free for everyone, you just devalued CC. It will become the new HS, and soon enough the standards will begin to lower.

I hate this idea. I would he way more supportive of federal grants to cover technical/vocational schools the US is sorely lacking in. Plumbing. Electrical. Welding. Tradecraft.

Don't devalue CC, something the working class is already using to better themselves.

I agree with that to an extent (i think Vocational training should be included) but I kind of look at this proposal as way to help lessen the debt burden of a college students let'em go for free for two years and then transfer and get a bachelors with half of the cost.  

[Larry]

One big thing I keep seeing, every time a discussion of the minimum wage comes up, is what I think of as an incredibly huge myth, in the debate.

The myth that changing the minimum wage affects only people making exactly the minimum wage.

It won't. An increase in the minimum wage will have ripple effects which will raise the income of everybody at the low end of the wage scale.

Raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10, and yes, the burger flipper who's making $8 will get a raise to $10.

But the CNAs down at the nursing home who are making $10? They'll get a raise, too. Because they have a skill which makes them more valuable than the burger flipper. Same reason why they make more than minimum wage, now.

Now, whether this lifting of the wages of everybody at the lower end of the wage scale is a good thing, I can see debate over. (Somebody has already pointed at automation as another effect.)

It means that both the wage increases, and the inflation of costs and prices, will be larger than you would expect from only raising the wages of burger flippers.

 

----------

 

Just my opinion, but I think it's so glaringly obvious that it sure looks beyond debate, to me. 

 

Raise the minimum wage, and you aren't just giving a raise to the burger flipper and the idiots at Wal Mart. 

 

You're also giving a raise to the CNAs.  The vet techs.  Plumbers and electricians.  Teachers?  Dental hygienists.  Auto mechanics. 

 

In short, a whole bunch of "the working poor". 

 

(And, heck, maybe a bit of a reduction in the amount of government assistance that those people are receiving, right now.  But I don't think that's guaranteed.  For several reasons.  I certainly wouldn't consider that to be such an obvious result.)