State of Union address puts Syria on the agenda

Looking abroad, Mr Obama... warned Syria's Bashar al-Assad his regime's days were numbered.

"Let there be no doubt. America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal," Mr Obama said.

"But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations."

Obama has demanded large tax hikes on millionaires

Syria is officially on the agenda and Iran gets another rebuke. Bashar al-Assad needs to work on an exit or he's a dead-man walking. You don't get that kind of warning without a follow-through.

Out of Afghanistan and into Syria or will that be targeted drones?

 

I missed watching Obama's State of the Union address. So, I'm catching up with it now. Your statement makes it sound as though he threatened US military action to Syria in his speech. That's not true. He didn't say that. I take it that you didn't even watch his speech? Anyway, I actually like this speech, in fact, there's much I would agree with him on. I would recommend watching it all, but if you just want to get the comments about Syria and Iran, it's about one hour into it.

[video=youtube;LD_wUNb0cw8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD_wUNb0cw8[/video]

The statements about Iran are nothing new. If you've read an article that suggests what you're alluding to here, it sounds like they are just trying to create a spin on his speech without any substance.

 

Probably only the 2nd SOTU speech I have seen. Bloody brilliant and inspiring I would have thought for all US citizens. Didn't even appear to use notes or aids of any kind. Just brilliant and the US should be proud of such a man representing them. Didn't like the foreign policy part of it though although there should be one less war by the end of his next term.

Meanwhile the Republicans are ripping into each other and revealing all the dirt they can. Don't understand how that helps their cause, nor do I understand how playing up in congress helps their cause but I suppose they are a lot smarter than me.

 

@Rebecca: You should have seen the dial polling done by CNN during the SOTU. It was comedy to watch independents dial him down every time he was busily spinning one of his fictions about the State of the Union. They actually interviewed a few of them and their words went something like, "The presidents opinion on the matter is simply out of sync with reality".

What I find stunning is that, for a president normally so on top of opinion polls, Obama gave practically no time at all to the deficit, the single most pressing issue in the mind of many voters. If he touched on it at all, it was in his call to tax the rich, which would not even put a small dent in the new permanent spending he has implemented over the last three years. Its like the guy is busily playing the fiddle while Rome burns.

 

Early in the speech, something Obama said, Why do we make it more financially advantageous tax-wise for companies to outsource our jobs to other countries? He didn't word it exactly like that, but basically. That really caught my attention, something I feel strongly about. Then, he went on saying US companies that outsource should get the highest taxes, US companies that hire mainly Americans should get the most tax breaks. I loved that. He also talked about bringing American manufacturing back, I agree. He wants to sell Made in the US all over the world. Awesome. He talked about fair trading, even mentioning China. He said instead of unemployment, make it reemployment, where we make it easier to get specific skill training to get back to work quickly. He's pushing education, and he wants it easily accessible. Off the top of my head, these are the first things about his speech that come to mind. When it comes to the economy, chances are, many people aren't losing sleep over the deficit, instead they're worried about having a job. Their personal economy. Although, having more plentiful jobs will help the deficit because they won't be asking for government handouts and will be paying taxes.

 

California asks the same question, about Washington State. "Why do we make it financially advantageous four companies to move their jobs out of California? I believe the answer generally goes, "Because California has no right to tax work being performed in Washington State". The same applies to Obama's national outsourcing question, though you can tell he is working hard on a way to tax companies for moving jobs to more business friendly countries. I suppose it never occurred to him that the answer is not to try and tax the work happening abroad, but instead to lower the taxes domestically making it more inviting to repatriate those jobs.

You may be right. It seems the president is betting on it. One thing is certain. If we stay on our current spending path, all the taxes in the world will not prevent us from looking like Greece in the near future. No jobs, no revenue, no hand outs, no benefits, and no way out.

More jobs will help the deficit from a revenue standpoint(more income to tax). If you heard the same SOTU I did, you heard Obama talking about ramping up handouts (Federal research grants, more subsidies for green energy, more subsidies for health care, the poor, education, etc). You are talking about plugging leaks in a boat that Obama is rapidly drilling new holes into.

 

So many manufacturing jobs have left this country. This was way before Obama took office. To be honest, I'm just skeptical they will return with the Republicans. What is the Republican plan to reduce outsourcing, other than reduce American workers benefits? It just seems like something is really wrong. At least, it's good to hear a politician saying it out loud, and that it matters to him, that he has a plan. It was so encouraging. Unemployment is hurting so many Americans. In Obama's plan, it sounds like he will significantly lower taxes for corporations, but just for ones that mainly have workers in the US.

I agree. I wasn't trying to insinuate the deficit doesn't matter. Of course it does. I'm just saying, jobs are so important. Someone with a job, they're going to be spending, paying taxes, and contributing much more to the economy.

I didn't really take it as ramping up handouts, but he is a Democrat, they tend to be willing to spend more in programs. But at the end of the day, when we vote, I guess it will be all about the overall package.

 

They won't. Cost of labor aside, things are 20% more expensive to produce in America. This is based on a complex tax structure where businesses are taxed at the city, county, state, and federal level, but more importantly, based on environmental policies which place a surcharge on any kind of waste production and pollution. We could bring everyone's wages down to what they pay in China and you still wouldn't see manufacturing return if those other costs exceeded the cost of shipping and import taxes. Having a nice place to live, it would seem, runs in direct opposition to having a nice place to manufacture.

Of course the discussion is academic because, regardless of the merits of the president's agenda, he will not likely get even a single peice of it through legislation. At some level, I doubt he even cares. These items are all dumped on the table to be talking points for a campaign year.

Think about it. Removing tax subsidies to Oil companies is one of the things he promised in the SOTU. It is something that generally speaking would have broad based support. If he couldn't get that done when he had large majorities in both houses of congress, what makes anyone think he can do it now? He can't. He won't.

He and the speaker of the house have not so much as communicated for more than a month (very similar to when he first got in office). He expects to be able to dictate terms, when the reality in Washington (and in life), is that compromise is a necessity, especially now that his poll numbers are lower than ever. He is uniquely unqualified or unwilling to lead and build concensus.

When you tell the American people, "We need to pass this health care bill to save our economy", everything you say is going to be regarded as bullsh*t.

 

Not the answer I want to hear. If something is thought impossible, a way will never be found. Politicians should look for ways we can, rather than reasons we can't. It's that important. We need jobs. Anyway, I hope I don't seem to much a flip-flopper. I love Ron Paul on civil rights. And, I admire certain things about Republicans very much. As far as jobs, I have to admit, Obama's ideas sound pretty good to me. Anyway, hope you have a good day.

 

We can get to full employment without the manufacturing jobs. We were there in 2007. I say the Republicans probably won't bring manufacturing back for two reasons. 1) Getting rid of the regulatory bureaucracy is nearly impossible for any president, and Obama is busily adding to it. 2) Even with a level corporate playing field, US wages are still much higher than offshore wages.

Of course there is always protectionism, though Ron Paul and Don Trump are the only guys who have hinted at using it.

Admittedly, everything Obama says sounds great. It is the actual real world results I take issue with. Hes a bit like the boyfriend who has been cheating on you since day one, but always talks a great game when he gets back.

You too!

 

@Bushranger: I don't recall Syria being mentioned at all...and in that entire speech Iraq was scarcely mentioned. The focus was domestic as I recall the speech, then re scanned a print copy...but frankly I like a lot of what Obama is doing overseas:

He had some great info on bin laden, secretly and quietly worked with advisors, and came up with a plan that sent bin laden to bye bye land. nice move. He's upped the ante on terrorists and managed to send a lot of them off to the lands of the virgins in the sky also...and just approved a rescue mission that worked.

Of course if some of these missions don't work out he'll take a beating...but to date his oversight of American forces overseas has been pretty good in my book. What occurs in Syria and Iraq....who knows??

As to the economy, I'm with you, Rebecca.

Look the US is currently the #2 world producer in manufacturing and mining for manufacturer. It was the #1 world producer till just recently, having been supplanted by China. China also has something like 760 million people in its work force. Oh my...that is 5 x the size of the US work force of about 150 million.

They can and do put a lot of people to work at very very very low salary rates. Also the world of manufacturing/ supply chains/ etc. have changed.

Here is an amazing story about mass manufacturing for Apple: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4609157...le-says-it-cant-build-iphone-us/#.TyCjK29rOX8

Salaries are not the only determinant. In fact a manufacturing infrastructure..with supply chains and access to manufacturers is something that China and other Asian nations are providing in a way that the US can't replicate right now. Of note...see that the Chinese government invests in that.

OTOH: American manufacturing in autos is increasing. According to different sources its increased in total somewhere between 90,000 to 160,000 in the last 2 years. Basically that is in line with the increase in US new vehicle sales from a low of 10.6 million when the worst of the recession hit...to the total last year of about 13 million. If we can continue to increase purchases of new cars back to where we were before the recession hit..(about 17 million/year)...you will see a lot more manufacturing hires.

We have existing supply chains...but its not like the phenomena in Asia with the incredible volume of low paid workers and concomitant investment by the Chinese government to underwrite the growth of manufacturing in that nation.

Smart governments invest in their economy....its an argument that the GOP likes to rip into the Obama administration...except that it has been going on through history and was done by the Bush administration without all the right wing screaming.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/energy/

Wow: according to that authoritative website from the Bush White House...during a period of ever growing deficits the Bush/GOP administration invested/spent $44 billion on energy/ investments including climate control...and get this...from the Bush/GOP website:

Hmm....if I was a GOP screaming political voice I'd be screaming bloody murder about government waste, deficits, miserable government, nut case politicians, evil anti Americanism, yada, yada, yada.

$1.2 billion spent by the GOP pols...and nothing to show for it. Don't you know who would be screaming like crazy and blaming big government, democrats and somehow connecting it to Kenyon anti-colonial behavior in the endless blame game.

Whether you are a government or a business you have to take shots at investing in things to meet the ever changing environment. Some will work. Some won't.

I agree with you, Rebecca. I'd like to see more efforts to find smart business opportunities where the US can take utilize its advantages and make some money. I look forward to government help in those areas. It will happen...it's just that it will be accompanied by ranting angry screamers (the extremist GOP) or more moderate voices that take a wait and see attitude.

Business is tough. I run businesses and we compete and evolve every day. I speak with neighboring small businesses. The successful one's do the same.

 

If only government was run like a business. It isn't. You know it, I know it.

Government has no responsibility to make a profit, or even meet a budget. Hell, the Senate hasn't even made a budget for over 1000 days. No worries.

The government awards capital investments and contracts based on campaign contributions, not necessarily on the merits of the investment. Solyndra is a glaring testament to that fact.

All this ignores the fact the government is borrowing 40% of every dollar it spends to "invest" in the various things it invests in. I think if you poll the American people you will find the idea of the US Government "Investing" our money like some kind of venture capitalist is a VERY unpopular idea, especially at our current debt levels.

See you in November.

 

LOL. I guess so. But between now and then I can't wait to see all the Hollywood fantasy stuff you'll be coming up with.

 

I did not watch it in full, only saw snippets in the news. My OP contains quotes taken from the story I linked to from our government-funded news organisation. I did not make it up. I assume, given they're his comments, it is correct. My comments are below the link and that's what I got out of what I saw.

 

Okay. I had to reread the thing twice to find the reference to syria. I had the television on while obama was speaking...but didn't pay hard attention to the whole thing, didn't catch everything, and definitely missed mention of Syria....but its there:

Here is some of the State of the Union Speech with a few paragraphs on international affairs:

obama goes on but he is anything but precise or threatening...at least IMO.

it looks to me like he gets more specific w/ Iran

so yeah, BushRanger he did mention Syria. IMHO though, the speech was so oriented toward domestic economic conditions, it was easy to miss the mention of Syria....but he did bring the country up.

 

I fully agree Obama has that gift of touching into the human spirit to convey a thought, a message, a kindred feeling that resonates with Americans especially those that are in the middle-class because these are the citizens that are most affected by recent developments in domestic policy especially on basic things like taxes and the economy. When we think more about it, we realize that President Obama didn't inherit a clean slate in the White House. No US President has or ever can, especially that the US has become enmeshed in new regional and global developments that impact not just Americans at home or abroad but the entire world as well.

 

The very basis of your starting this thread is Obama supposedly threatening Syria in the State of the Union address, you were saying, Syria is "officially on the agenda" and "Bashar al-Assad needs to work on an exit or he's a dead-man walking" and "You don't get that kind of warning without a follow-through."

And, that's based on what exactly? Oh, here, one sentence in a hour + speech, with an observation of the Arab Spring:

So, no offense, but yeah it does kind of look like you're just pulling stuff out of thin air. Apparently, you have a lot of stuff going on in your own neck of the woods. Not sure why you always seem so obsessed by mine.

[video=youtube;xQvHGMMWYAQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQvHGMMWYAQ[/video]

Did you tear down their tents??!!!!!

 

The very basis was commenting on the news story. The original page I linked to said:

Pulled from thin air..? No, got it from a trusted source and supplied the link . Based on that trusted news source I made summations. If they're wrong then so is my summary. But if they're right... so is my summary. Obama seems capable of handling it.

PM indeed...our PM is female. That is opposition leader Tony Abbott being run out by the locals. Nothing new there, we don't like right-wing nutjobs. He made some stupid comment (not unusual) and this upset aboriginals on the lawn next door who got upset he was there. His bodyguards whisked him off, the bodyguards also rushed PM Gillard off and she tripped on the way to the car.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't PM Gillard also against sovereignty for the Aboriginals? Didn't she just get through with the glorious celebration of Invasion Day (Or Australia day as the invaders call it)?

 

I do believe you're correct. Interesting stuff. Here is a video about the 'Aboriginal Tent Embassy'.

[video=youtube;aeC23auQB_A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeC23auQB_A[/video]