Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, October 24, 2016

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday is about more than the final three years of his presidency. Its purpose should be to influence the next decade of American political life and begin shaping the post-Obama era.

For the first time since his early days in office, Obama has the philosophical winds at his back. He may be struggling with his approval ratings, but the matters the president hopes to move to the center of the national agenda — rising inequality and declining social mobility — are very much on the nation’s mind.

The days leading up to Obama’s best chance to redirect the country’s conversation brought two important signals that the tectonic plates beneath our politics are shifting. One was a striking Pew Research Center poll showing that on issues related to economic and social justice, Democrats and Independents are on the same page while Republicans find themselves isolated.

The other was a speech by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), at the Center for American Progress. One of his party’s sharpest strategists, Schumer is a pragmatic sort of liberal with a lifelong mistrust of ideologues. But his address was a populist rallying cry, calling on Democrats to embrace “a renewed and robust defense of government” in the face of the Tea Party’s challenge.

Democrats, he said, needed to make “the decline in middle-class incomes, the slow growth of good-paying jobs, and the idea that too little of our productivity benefits wages” central concerns in the coming years. Arguing that his party “accepted too easily the primacy of the deficit” in its approach to policymaking, Schumer praised Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the bane of the world of high finance, for being “one of the first to sound the alarm bell” on the deterioration of middle-class living standards. And he assailed the “plutocrats” who finance a Tea Party movement that often works against its members’ interests.

Schumer never forgets that he has constituents on Wall Street and went out of his way to say that Americans “don’t mind if incomes of people at the top go up 20 percent as long as theirs go up 3 to 4 percent.” But it says something about his political intuitions that he cited Warren and offered a tough critique of the economy’s shortcomings.

The Pew survey released on the day Schumer spoke ratified his instinct. It should also worry Republicans who emerged as outliers on key economic questions. Asked how much government should do to reduce poverty, 67 percent of Democrats and 56 percent of Independents said it should do “a lot.” Only 27 percent of Republicans said this.

There was a similar contrast in how Republicans and everyone else viewed wealth and poverty. Pew asked respondents if the wealthy got that way primarily because they “worked harder than others” or because they “had more advantages.” Republicans ascribed wealth to hard work by a margin of 57 percent to 32 percent. But among Democrats, only 27 percent pointed to hard work, while 63 percent highlighted the advantages the wealthy enjoyed. Independents split in the same direction: 37 percent said hard work, 52 percent said the rich had more advantages.

  • Dominick Vila

    Hopefully, President Obama will not miss the State of the Union opportunity to highlight the progress we have made during the last 4.5 years, remind everyone of where we were in January 2009, remind everyone of the consequences of deregulation (Madoff, ENRON, AIG, and the near collapse of our economy), remind everyone of the benefits and the role that government can play in our lives – the Gipper’s opinion notwithstanding – and paint a clear picture of what remains to be done to strengthen our economy, create jobs, and solve the widening income inequality that exists in our country. The latter is a major concern for most Americans, for obvious reasons, and it is not something that can be fixed overnight. Income inequality is influenced by many factors, ranging from inadequate education, to ethnic marginalization, to the disintegration of the nuclear family. The high dropout rate in the USA is leaving thousands of young Americans behind. Their only options are to join the military, find comfort in placebos, or accept menial jobs. The children of millions of Americans are growing up without parental guidance and little motivation, sometimes alone or under the care of people who are not qualified or interested in raising someone else’s children.
    Our roads and bridges are disintegrating, our power grid is inefficient, our seaports and airports are antiquated, investment in R&D and education is lagging most industrialized nations, and if we don’t do something soon it may be virtually impossible to catch up and preserve the privileged position we still enjoy in the global economy.
    These are just a few examples of socioeconomic problems the President should address, even if it is at a high level. Republicans prefer to focus on micro solutions, preferably when they offer an opportunity to attack a political opponent. We must demonstrate vision and pragmatism, if the goal is to solve the problems we are facing and tell the American people the truths they want to hear.

  • Stephen Reid

    I don’t think so and over 65% of the people have dissaprove of what he doing in office! Steve Reid

    • 4sanity4all

      Steve, read the article again. Public opinion is in favor of the President’s agenda. Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean that 65% of the country agrees with you. They do not.

    • daniel bostdorf


  • Bill Thompson

    This is a key State of the Union address for Pres. Obama. I hope he’s up to the task, what needs to be said should not come as a surprise to anybody that is paying attention. We have an infrastructure that is in serious decline our airports, seaports, roads, bridges, electrical grid all are in desperate need of upgrades. Electrical grid and vulnerabilities via the Internet to the electrical infrastructure should be brought to light. This country is extremely vulnerable to foreign cyber terrorist attacks which could easily cripple our country in a matter of days. The emphasis for the State of the Union address needs to focus on the priority of putting people back to work. This issue needs to be driven home it will sell in red states also there are plenty of unemployed construction workers in red states. With construction jobs come banking jobs and support industries in almost every phase of our economy. The emphasis on livable wage jobs and the correlation to our declining infrastructure needs to be sent home. In the current obstructionist atmosphere that exists any though of spending money will be greatly contested by the right. These issues need to be hammered home the same way the GOP has been hammering the idea of lowering taxes for the last 30 years. The Democratic Party as a whole needs to be more United and speak with a singular voice that is heard day in and day out if the last four years Pres. Obama’s presidency is to be successful.

  • howa4x

    Obama always had a way to put complex theory into understandable terms. The middle class is disappearing for a number of reasons. 1st is the search for cheap labor abroad to puff up profits and to have little environmental restrictions,Technological advances in manufacturing mean less workers. 2nd The amount of student debt is staggering. This forces graduates into a labor market with stagnant wages and why over 30% still live at home. How can these kids buy the houses and cars, and consumer spending that propel our economy when they already have 50-100,000 in debts. You can’t say that because they can afford a smart phone that all is well 3rd The work for less economy where the most jobs are created means that the bottom 1/3 of the economy is based on subsistence wages, and these people depend on a social safety net of food and housing assistance. In a number of states republican haven’t even taken the Medicaid expansion that would cover these people medically.
    This is all reality and the voters realize it. They are also beginning to realize that the poor aren’t the problem and see the gap between themselves and the 1% growing and a realization that their children may not get there. This doesn’t bode well for a party whose only answer is tax cuts for the wealthy. Another issue is that corporations are sitting on tons of cash and not hiring, and are doing away with the middle management jobs that helped form the middle class,
    Obama has a lot he can talk about and the republican don’t have an answer.

    • mike

      Under Obama the top 1% receive .93 cents of every new dollar made.
      Corporate taxes high, maybe highest in the world. Corporation sitting off shore with large amounts of cash but why bring back if they are going to be taxed so highly. So you admit the 4000+ new regulations alone in 2013 is taking about 200 billion out of the private sector and all regulations combined over 1.1 trillion a year is having an effect on business decisions.
      Republicans have some very good ideas but try and get the Great Negotiator Obama to sit at the table is another thing.
      Obama must change the subject since his administration is failing.
      Do I wish he truly a great leader, yes. But he isn’t. I would love to see full employment(if possible) and our strength returning as a nation, but it isn’t, from day one was his administrations has concentrated on his social agenda and not on rebuilding the economy and employment. He had/has a pathetic economic team of advisors. Many from the Clinton years and yet the magic is lacking. Larry Summers, laugh out loud, thank god is gone. Obama works by trust and that is/has not worked. Obama should forget trust and concentrate of people who know what they are doing.

      • Allan Richardson

        You started off admitting that the top 1% receive 93 cents of every new dollar made. If they receive that much AFTER accounting for “the world’s highest corporate taxes” then how much do they receive BEFORE paying corporate taxes? 99%?

        The truth is that while corporate tax RATES may be high, the loopholes allow many highly profitable companies to pay no tax at all; in fact, they get EXTRA MONEY “BACK” from the rest of the taxpayers (the 99% who collectively only got 7 cents on every new dollar; that is, you and me, unless your name is Trump or Koch) even when they make massive profits. And the PERSONAL taxes of the top 1% follow the same math. The top bracket for earned income is 35%, and most wage earners pay about 15-20% on INCOME tax, not counting payroll tax and Medicare tax. But the highest income households are not wage earners; they are investors whose income often consists primarily of capital gains. And they only pay 15% of what is left AFTER taking all the loopholes.

        The original intent of capital gains tax rates was to reward those who invested money in a business, then waited for it to become successful, over a year or more, then sold it, presumably to someone else who would continue to operate it. Or, to someone who bought a house, lived in it for several years, then sold it for a profit. Congress, at the time those tax laws were passed, rightly felt that such a windfall coming AFTER a year or more of giving up the current cash flow from an investment useful to society (owning a business or a home), should be taxed more lightly than regular income. But now these laws have been abused by those who buy and sell stocks, churning the market in the process, and they have lobbied to get

        even SHORT TERM buy-sell cycles the benefit, and worse, to allow hedge fund managers, who risk OTHER PEOPLE’S money and are paid fees plus commissions, to treat their FEES as capital gains (as if they had risked their personal funds), even though they are actually being paid for providing a service.

        The reason corporations are sitting on offshore cash has nothing to do with taxes or regulations (except for those who feel they have an unalienable RIGHT to poison the environment, put unhealthy and toxic ingredients in the food we eat, help disease germs to become resistant to the drugs used to fight infection by using those drugs as a daily “growth enhancer” for livestock, etc.). They have to do with what Henry Ford said so long ago: he wanted his workers to be able to afford what they made! Middle class people with shrinking wages, when they HAVE jobs, are spending more of their income on monopoly-priced products, and being forced by contracts to keep paying even when they no longer need the products, and many are staving off overt poverty ONLY through borrowing. When they do try to save money for themselves, the economy suffers because PEOPLE QUIT BUYING. Money does not trickle down, it BUBBLES UP from working people of the lower and middle income groups.

        The fact is that the biggest part of his “social agenda,” making health care available to millions more people than previously, who would DIE (read that again, DIE) without the ability to see a doctor regularly and get appropriate treatment when their doctor feels it is necessary (including medical guidance in preventing further damage), is a big PART OF his economic agenda. Imperfect as it is, since it still depends upon private, for-profit insurers, it’s a heck of a lot better than it was (and I can say personally that if it had been in effect 30 years ago, I would have ten times as much retirement savings as I have now). The OTHER parts of his “social” agenda are revenue neutral, except when states waste their taxpayers’ money fighting them up to the Supreme Court, just to appeal to the prejudices of a shrinking subset of voters.

        This president has managed to accomplish a good part of his job creating agenda DESPITE opposition from an entire party (voting in lockstep as a militant sect, rather than as a reasonable group of leaders with varying degrees of ideology, but a pragmatic desire to help their country, as they once were). With actual HELP to make America more prosperous, he could have done so much more. But all THEY want is to OBSTRUCT EVERYTHING. Their leaders have even ADMITTED that their agenda is to make Obama fail, EVEN AT THE COST OF MAKING AMERICA FAIL.

        The biggest mistake he has made so far, which he is now beginning to correct, is to assume that the REPUBLICANS ARE REASONABLE, and that their goal is the same as his, namely recovering from the Great Recession. We have seen by their actions that this is not true. Their goal and their philosophy is “NOTHING GOOD gets done unless we are in charge.” And as we have seen, nothing good gets done WHEN they are in charge, BECAUSE they are in charge.

        I will be watching tomorrow night, and sending in questions during the day tomorrow, hoping that he will (1) admit that he was WRONG to put deficit cutting before middle class wage relief and job creation (the time to cut deficits is AFTER the economy is prosperous; but the other party blew that chance on an unbudgeted war and sweetheart contracts for defense contractors); that he will (2) admit that nothing good for WORKERS can come out of fast track trade deal authority, and in fact that with what has been LEAKED about its secret provisions, the TPP is much worse than NAFTA (there was a poster of an 8 year old girl holding up a sign saying, “I’m old enough to work in Vietnam”); and that America’s workers at the lowest end of the wage scale need a raise, even if he has to do it for federal contractors only at first, via executive order.

        Have fun pretending that “trickle down” (which even the elder Bush called “voodoo economics” before he was offered the VP slot to shut him up about it) works. It never has and never will. You cannot make a nation more prosperous by making the vast majority of its citizens LESS prosperous.

        • mike

          It seems you have a problem with individual income and corporate income. Most people understand the top 1% are people not corporations. You seems not to understand the top 1% of 317 million people is only 3 million measly people
          As to off shore cash on hand

          As republicans being unreasonable! what a load of crap. Obama’s first two years he ignored the right, attacked the right, demagogued the right and continues to blame them. What is really comical is the whinny little Obama blaming his failures on Rush and Fox News. LOL!!!!

          As to your last paragraph. Historically, the govt is incapable of making their citizens prosperous. It is and always will be the private sector that creates wealth. An that my friend he why he is a failure, he has you all believing govt can do all.

          • daniel bostdorf

            Dionne states correctly:

            “As for why individuals were poor, 51 percent of Republicans attributed their status principally to a “lack of effort,” while 32 percent said poverty resulted from “circumstances beyond his or her control.” Again, the numbers were reversed for Democrats and Independents: Democrats picked the “circumstances” explanation by better than 2 to 1; Independents did so by a margin of about 5 to 3.

            And on two specific proposals now dividing Republicans and Democrats in Congress — raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and extending unemployment benefits — the public, including many rank-and-file Republicans, sided overwhelmingly against the GOP: 73 percent favored the minimum-wage hike; 63 percent favored a one-year extension of unemployment benefits.

            For Obama, now is not the time for defensiveness. His current difficulties owe less to Obamacare’s early problems than to a broader alienation fostered by the Republicans’ ability to block government efforts to ease widespread economic stress.

            The president should certainly play for some immediate policy victories, notably on immigration reform. But his larger task is the one Ronald Reagan always kept in mind: to encourage a shift in public opinion that is already moving toward his ideas.

            Obama will be judged, of course, by the state of the nation when he leaves office in January 2017. But his place in history will depend on what is happening in 2027 and beyond.”

          • mike

            We will wait and see. Right now his legacy is tanking. His signature program ACA, and he was unaware of the problems. Obama is AWOL as a leader or has around him the most incompetent people, which again shows how poor a administrator he is for hiring them.

            Hey, quit feeding the Troll!!!!! LOL!!!

          • Allan Richardson

            I understand that there is a difference between corporate and individual income. The governance of corporations, however, is in the hands of some individuals who may or may not own large shares of that particular corporation (but usually they do own large amounts of stock in general). These people govern their putative “employers” in ways that increase their bonus and dividend income, not necessarily in ways that make workers, customers, shareholders (as a group) and the public better off. The long term view would encourage paying workers more and hiring enough workers to do a job properly, so that there would be a large market of potential customers who can afford to buy more.

            The top one percent does include a million or so people, but the REAL inequality is in the top one percent OF the top one percent. In the world as a whole, 85 individuals own as much as the bottom half of the world’s population. There may be disagreements about whether this is “moral” in an abstract sense, but history has shown that when it is taken to an extreme, and too many bad things happen to the poor majority (note that our middle class majority with its income “bell curve” is an anomaly in human history), for too long, then eventually bad things happen to the TOP level individuals. The difference between liberals and radicals is that liberals want to change things peacefully so that no one is hurt while the misery of that majority is relieved, while radicals go all out to harm the top people as much as possible, taking out the rage of the majority. France in 1789 (LITERALLY taking a bit off the top!), Russia in 1917, Germany in 1933. It could have been America in 1933, but cooler heads prevailed, and created our MIDDLE class majority. It could also have been America in the 1960s, because the middle class majority was, unfortunately, a WHITE middle class majority, but cooler heads prevailed on that also. Now we have people in government and (at the top of) the private sector who want to UNDO what was done in 1933 AND in 1965, and even the positive things that were done around 1900.

            The conservative straw man that “liberals believe government can do it all” is bogus. Liberals ACTUALLY believe that the private sector can do MOST of the work of creating prosperity, but just as a football game cannot be run without referees and rules and penalties (YARDAGE REDISTRIBUTION!), an economy requires two things out of government: keeping up with the ingenuity of the unscrupulous as they create new ways to evade the letter of the law, and helping with the investments that the private sector has no reason to make, or are too large for them to make, but will make the private sector in general more prosperous. Some of these investments include the internet, interstate highways, TVA and rural electrification (without which the bomb would not have been ready when it was), US highways around WWI, and in the 19th century, the transcontinental railroad and land grant universities.

            As for the President “refusing to cooperate” with Republicans, they have made clear since the Bush years that “compromising with us” means “doing exactly what we want,” that “bipartisan” means “exactly what we proposed,” and that their goal ever since January 20, 2009 has been to “make Obama fail” even if it means making America fail. Rush Limbaugh, the REAL leader of the Republicans today, said so in so many words, confirming the leaked story of the dinner meeting on Inauguration Night 2009 at which the entire Republican caucus swore to “make him a one term President” — a plan which failed, but they continued to work on ruining America in order to ruin his second term.

          • mike

            Did or didn’t he negotiate with republicans in his first two years? yes or no.
            Rush comment was in 2012 not 2009. McConnells was in 2010 just before Obama/democrats took a beating at the mid term elections.Factcheck

            Rush is the leader-BS
            At the dinner that was never said, author Draper, the discussion was taking back the house in 2010(which they did) and defeat him in 2012.
            If you don’t think the dems were not plotting against Bush in 2001 and 2005 you are living on mars.

            As who is ruining this country just look at your leader. Americans see him as incompetent to run the economy, no longer trust him. Quinnipiac

      • howa4x

        This was all tried before with the Bush tax cuts which resulted in the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the 1% in history that resulted in a 756% rise in wealth of that group. So how many jobs were created? The republican congress which controlled both houses gave tax cuts to corporations that shipped jobs overseas More jobs were shipped overseas during the Bush administration than any other time..Environmental laws were loosened, OSHA laid back as did every regulatory agency including the SEC. After all that Middle class wages still stayed flat and a lot of the jobs shipped out were middle management middle class jobs. So what did we get as a country for all that? We got greedy CEO’s robbing pension funds of their companies, and a meltdown on Wall st caused by greed that wiped out 1/2 of all wealth. Bush did a TARP program under the supervision of Hank Paulson that bailed out the 1% Part of that 700 billion was to maintain the tax cuts for the wealthy who received 85% of all bailout funds. Obama inherited an economy in free fall and loosing 44,000 jobs/month. The infrastructure program he proposed was cut by the republicans under threat of filibuster.
        So how did the 1% repay American for all it’s generosity? Cisco became an Irish company, and Halliburton the company that was given a no- bid 6 billion contract for the Iraq war because a registered company of Dubai. Romney hid his 250 million of wealth during Bush in off shore accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands and brought it back under the amnesty so he could run. He didn’t create one job with all that wealth yet you want to give people like him another tax cut! The Walton’s worth is 115 billion yet they pay at the bottom of the wage scale in the new republican work for less economy. They don’t give any benefits, same for Mc Donald’s, but they tell their subsistence workers how to apply for government subsidizes that you and I pay for. Yet you want to give these people another tax cut? American corporation are sitting on piles of cash and not hiring. Why do they need a tax cut, and don’t even say it’s because of Obamacare because they give their employees health benefits already. the actuality is the Rich found a way to get much richer and not have to do anything for it. They found dopes like you willing to pay for new bridges and roads, and benefits for their employees. So you can have your tax cut for the wealthy fantasy like they are actually going to help this country. My view is if they don’t then tax it away.

        • mike

          Why are corporations and small business sitting on large amounts of money??? Pretty simple, the uncertainty of this Administration-higher taxes, Obamacare, regulations the list goes on and on.

          It seems most of your post is plain Baloney.

          • howa4x

            Really? big corporations gave health benefits to employees prior to the ACA so that is nonsense that they are using it to prevent hiring. European countries have more regulations and are hiring. A number of corporations pay no taxes like GE. YOU can believe in republican mantra of giving tax breaks to corporations and billionaires for no return to this country and I choose the opposite. No need to communicate anymore since we see the world through a different lens

          • mike

            You seem to forget high taxes(34%)on profits to return to this country, regulations, are some of the uncertainty formed by the Obama admin., but biggest uncertainty is ACA and the rising costs.


            WP had an article showing a 50% for one business owner by United Health. This is just the beginning and by July the full effect of ACA will be known for the business community. Look for many to drop healthcare because of expense.

            Since ACA considers 30 hours full time we see business forcing employees into Part Time-less income. Why did Obama delay the business mandate until after the 2014 election. Did you ever ask that question?? Probably not!!!


            Why did Obama have GE’s Immelt on his Economic Recovery and Advisory Board, when GE paid no taxes? Why did Immelt during this time send one of his part of one divisions to China??

          • howa4x

            Great Mike so we go back to corporations paying a 15% tax for those who will actually pay it, but the reality is that they are using the excuse to find cheaper labor markets. Profits drive corporations not civic responsibility. So who will pay for our extra large army or fix the roads and bridges. What we should be doing if we all really love this country is to place an exit tax on every job that is outsourced, and if a corporation leaves treat it like a foreign company and place import taxes on its products. It is time we play hardball with all the greedy corporate criminals posing as patriots.
            As for health care do you want to go back to no regulations? Back to 32 million uninsured, or insurance companies having the right to drop coverage at any time? Or placing a 1 million life time cap on benefits for your whole family? Kicking 2.6 million young adults off their parents policy? Ending the Medicaid expansion? Is that what you want? the result of that was excess profits for the insurance companies and 50,000 dead Americans. I know all you republicans place profits over life or you all would have reformed the system when GWB had both houses. The ACA exists because the republicans did nothing about the situation.

          • mike
          • daniel bostdorf

          • mike

            The mental midgets aren’t listening. LOL!!!!

          • rkief

            Sorry, Mike, but you forgot to mention a few other details about the money-sitting of corporations and the wealthy, like all of the corporate advantages, loopholes (available only to the wealthy), subsidies, off-shore tax havens – all payed for by public funds – cheap labor, lack of enforcement (for the last 30 years or so, of those regulations you rant about), and last but not least, a legislative system built on opacity and bribery, which has allowed this system to exist.

            And those high taxes you speak of? What a bunch of baloney! Taxes (actually) paid by corporations and the wealthy are lower than they have ever been. It’s only the poor and middle-class (including small businesses) who are forced to pay unfairly and beyond their means.

          • mike
          • rkief

            Yes, my guru, the official statutory federal corporate tax rate for the highest earners is at 39.1 percent, but the effective (actual paid) rate is closer to half that. Of course, some technicalities obscure any exact reckoning, so neither of us is probably “right.”

            Sorry to be such a simpleton, but I look at the chart of income gains for the last 30 years (approximately, since “Trickle-down” started,) and I see a practically vertical spike for the wealthiest 1 percent or so, and a level or declining line – if inflation is considered – for the rest of us, so I have a problem feeling sorry for the poor, victimized corporations, who are hoarding the big bucks that have avalanched up to them from the government (us), and letting very little trickle back down into the economy.

          • mike

            Well there you go again!! The Federal rate is 35% not 39.1, you have added state and local. Go look at Marielandel above. Effective rate is different but what I have reviewed taxes paid have been around around 12.6%.


            Avalanched up by govt., I don’t think the profits are governmental only.

            GE is sitting with 77 billion off shore and has paid no federal income tax. Has sent top management for one division to China(claims employment won’t Change For Now), has half their labor force outside the country but yet the CEO Immelt was on Obama’s Economic recovery advisory board. Why???

          • daniel bostdorf

            You SOTU prediction was a little bit wrong. Small business will see significant improvement ONLY IF the obstructionist GOP/Teaparty gets out of the way and passes bipartisan legislation to create publi private partnerships—as Obama has done successfully–to improve small business community by training workers for jobs they create.

            So far –the GOP has failed miserably to enact any legislation to help small business, workers and create jobs.

          • mike

            There you go again!!!! Try this on for size and OMG!!! from ABC, click on Small business.
            I sure didn’t hear him helping the small business on taxes, obamacare, energy costs, etc. and the importance of a healthy business to hire more people.


          • daniel bostdorf

            Most fact based individuals realize: Small business will see significant improvement ONLY IF the obstructionist GOP/Teaparty gets out of the way and passes bipartisan legislation to create publi private partnerships—as Obama has done successfully–to improve small business community by training workers for jobs they create.

            So far –the GOP has failed miserably to enact any legislation to help small business, workers and create jobs.

          • mike

            I showed you facts about Obama lies and you question my facts!!! ABC pretty much an Obama tool when it comes to his administration.

            Training more people has nothing to do with the fact costs are controlling the ability to hire. Obama’s Regulation Nation is costing the business community thru energy increases healthcare increases, regulations increases. Obama has added more to complicate than to improve their ability to survive and hire.

            Republicans have excellent ideas for SB but the democrats are the problem.

            It seem you can even control your own warnings about feeding the troll LOL!!!!

          • daniel bostdorf

            Mea Culpa: a formal acknowledgment of personal fault or error….you are right…In this case, .I did feed you Mike The Troll…Stay well…

          • mike

            You too!!! Look forward to the next time.

  • charles king

    I say again let us All do some (critical Thinking) We can solve this problem very easy What? is the problem, the problem is MONIES are doing the Hiring and Firing, and the People are suffering because they let their Democracy slip away, You the People has to work at Keeping Your Democracy alive.Why? do you the people are having Big time troubles, Well, The Plutocracts are all over small town America, and buying up all of Your Public Officials, and Who? are these people that say” This is a private place” , You better check out small town America, cause there is another America out there that has no faith in your Democracy, cause they believe they can SHUT it down, and if Democracy don’t hurry and return there is going top be another Civil War on the horizing. Sen. Shumyer, was on time about Plutocracy is rising very fast in small-town America they are legal but I worry because of the Racial overtone that the movement carry, although the next time around will be the Rich Against the Poor, it will be like America was in the nineteen twenties When? the Police was against the strikers What? goes around Come around again. Thank You are the magic words in my book. I Love Ya All. Check out Webster’s Dict. Plutocracy Vs. Democracy This is all about Management your Assets And Liabilities do some (Critical Thinking) C. E. KING

  • rustacus21

    Understanding that ‘this’ isn’t an ‘Obama’ issue, but rather a voting (or lack thereof) issue, we can better understand why it took so long for the ‘winds of change’ to ‘appear’ in the Presidents ‘directional’ advantage. The citizenry has been woefully slow – a result of psychic, emotional & economic abuse – to figure out this is the conservative game-plan: to abuse the citizenry to such a disorienting level, that they can’t catch their (collective) balance, due to the non-stop nature of being battered – over & over, by 1 crisis after another. Our lack of knowledge of the sociological implications of sociopaths, psychopaths & kleptomaniacs, all conservatives, who have instituted all of their worst behaviors, projecting & ‘injecting’ them into our Democracy, has left the nation a shambles. Social scientists understand this very well, but regrettably, tragically, remain silent, when they should be square in the middle of this socio/economic/political crisis threatening our nation like no other time in its 238 year existence!

    • daniel bostdorf

      Dionne states it best in his opening:

      “President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday is about more than the final three years of his presidency. Its purpose should be to influence the next decade of American political life and begin shaping the post-Obama era.

      For the first time since his early days in office, Obama has the philosophical winds at his back. He may be struggling with his approval ratings, but the matters the president hopes to move to the center of the national agenda — rising inequality and declining social mobility — are very much on the nation’s mind.

      The days leading up to Obama’s best chance to redirect the country’s conversation brought two important signals that the tectonic plates beneath our politics are shifting. One was a striking Pew Research Center poll showing that on issues related to economic and social justice, Democrats and Independents are on the same page while Republicans find themselves isolated.

      The other was a speech by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), at the Center for American Progress. One of his party’s sharpest strategists, Schumer is a pragmatic sort of liberal with a lifelong mistrust of ideologues. But his address was a populist rallying cry, calling on Democrats to embrace “a renewed and robust defense of government” in the face of the Tea Party’s challenge.”

      • rustacus21

        The resonance building now must be sustained for the long run. “Moderate” traitors to the Liberal/Progressive ‘ideology’ (an inescapable CONDITION of ‘specieal’ politics) & policy foundations, are responsible for allowing the safeguards, firewalls & regulations – post Great Depression I – to give & finally collapse under the combined weight of ‘ideological’ (conservative) attacks & the MONEY that has tsunamied across the whole of the political terrain! Thanx for the tip & I’ll be sure to check out Schumer’s (who bears some complicity in the ‘collapse’ – good to see his work at redemption…) speech & give it due consideration. What’s at stake is huge, as I lay out in my latest blog (‘That Other One Percent’… if U google for it), putting ‘Liberal/Progressive’ urgency to every election from now on…

  • Robert Roberto

    If you don’t like to listen to a liar turn the channel.

    • daniel bostdorf

      . ..