Here is the transcript of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech. Rep. Paul Ryan gave a short response.
How did it go? Well, since Obama’s speech is the one that scared me, I will let Ryan’s speech stand on its own.
Early in the speech, Obama suggested we all need to be one big happy.
We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.
That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.
Obama knows how to give a pretty speech. The words sound so nice, but we do not all share the same dreams, and our dreams do not all deserve a chance to be fulfilled. There is a reason God does not answer all our prayers. We are not all alike. We do not all value, believe in, or want the same things. Even we did, it is not Obama’s job to do what God has left undone, to fulfill our dreams. Obama’s job is to protect our rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (our right to work on our own dreams). That, unfortunately, is not the job description Busybody Obama has set for himself. Instead, he wants to run our lives. He wants to pick the winners and the losers. He wants to condemn those dreams he deems unworthy and to reward those he decides deserve to be rewarded.
Limited government, not the socialist agenda Obama advocates, set America apart as a nation. Americans worked to fulfill their own dreams; they did not beg help from government nannies. The founders satisfied themselves with privately run health, education, and welfare services. They did not finance R&D programs just because they had the right political connections. The founders most certainly never dreamed of the implementing Obama’s centrally planned enterprises. In fact, they wrote the Constitution specifically to prevent such absurdly vile nonsense.
Yet in his speech Obama advocated central planning for the economy. He implicitly promoted “saving the environment” by taxing and spending us into poverty with Cap and Trade. And make no mistake; Obama advocated further nationalization of our education system. When we are already going broke because of humongous health, education, and welfare programs, what Obama wants is reckless. The man recognizes no constitutional restraints. Our ballooning government budgets do not bother him at all. After exploding spending, he laughably proposes to freeze a small part of the budget. It is not our dreams Obama cares about. What he wants is to force his own sick dream upon the rest of us.
Go to house.gov. Write a note to your congressman. Tell that person you elected to keep Obama out of your life and out your pocketbook.
Yes, you are an average citizen, with an under average sized brain….
Dang Ron, that was a substantive reply. How about using your “above average size brain”* to logically refute the author’s claims. You can’t do that in one sentence full of ignorance and asininity. You need at least a long paragraph, preferably two or three to explain your position and why you disagree with CT.
* sarcasm alert
Mike
thatmrgguy –
Thanks for the support.
Ron – You are welcome to comment. I don’t bite, but I do have a question. You apparently went to the trouble to visit the About page. Nevertheless, for reasons you could not be bothered to state, you still attacked me personally. When I do not claim my views are correct because of who I am or what I have done, what is the point? Even if I am a moron, you did not prove or disprove anything.
The facts are available. Why not use them to prove your point — whatever it may be? Don’t you realize that when you attack people personally, and you cannot even state why, you prove nothing. You just display your own ignorance and savagery.
“…but we do not all share the same dreams…”
What dreams do you have Tom that I do not share and what dreams do I have that you do not share?
Thanks, Tom for being, as usual, the voice of reason. I like that you left Ron’s comment in place – I usually trash the trolls. But here, it is instructive.
Something that is striking about the current news cycle is that conservatives and Republicans are talking about facts. Debt numbers, solvency issues, possible solutions (tough love).
It seems that Obama thinks he can say all the high minded, but thin substance and have it work. Nope.
Eric – Although you have left a fair number of comments, I don’t recall any that addressed the content of your dreams. So I do not know about your dreams. I don’t know what you hope to accomplish. I don’t know what you want to get out of this life (or the next). I just hope you aspire to something more substantial than a warm house (set at the temperature of your choice), sex (with someone with whom you share a strong and mutual affection), food (that you like to eat), and a soft bed (that you find meets your personal desires for comfort).
Harry – Ron’s comment did backfire on him.
I wish I could claim I had devised some grand plan, but I just try to follow the rules on my Blog Ethics page, and those I borrowed from someone else.
Hopefully, as you suggest, the People will tire of the rank stupidity of depending upon the promises of the hollow promises of ambitious politicians.
I too believe in an open and frank exchange of ideas, so I’d like to offer a rebuttal to your original post. I won’t go so far as to regard your post as unethical (based on your own blog ethics, see #5), but there are several logical fallacies that cannot pass without comment.
Some items to which I object from your original post;
1. President Obama did not claim that we all share the same dream. What he said was “that we share common hopes and a common creed.” It seems to me that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” would qualify as a hope and a creed. That is something we all have in common, as you freely admit. A little girl in Tucson having dreams “not so different than those of our own children” is allegorical as you surely must be aware. It is representative of a basic ideal that we all want a better life for our children; that their dreams have a chance to be fulfilled.
2. Isn’t your statement that the “right to work on our own dreams” is the same as having a chance to fulfill our dreams? This appears to be a distinction without a difference. Semantics aside, both ideas simply express the desire to be allowed equality of opportunity. If I’ve misinterpreted your words, please let me know.
At this point, I sense you have a pretty strong bias (Blog Ethic #5) against President Obama unless “busybody” is a term of endearment with which I am not familiar. Likewise, “his own sick dream” does not exactly come across as even-handed.
I differ on the view that “our dreams do not all deserve a chance to be fulfilled.” I might agree that all dreams do not deserve to be fulfilled, but why wouldn’t you support a policy that promises that we all get the chance? How can you support any kind of equality if some citizens are considered forfeit before they get to test their potential?
3. You state President Obama wants to “run our lives”, “pick winners and losers”, condemn unworthy dreams, and reward worthy ones. This is where you and I significantly depart in our interpretation of his actions. Every speech I’ve heard the President give discusses the responsibility of the individual, and the right to self-determinism.
As I have heard the “socialist agenda” claims reverberate through the echo chamber that is Fox News and its many talking heads with scant supporting evidence, may I ask that you provide something to support your argument? Specifically, what evidence supports the idea that President Obama advocates a socialist agenda?
In all honestly, I believe that the apparent favoritism granted to the large financial institutions (bailouts, quantitative easing) is a major problem for the future of the US economy. However, it’s hard to believe that any President, Republican or Democrat, would have acted any differently. In fact, it is worth remembering that TARP was signed into law by President Bush. And I hardly view it as a power grab. Rather, I see it as one of the more reasonable options among as raft of really bad ones.
4. Limited government does not set America apart from the world; at least, not in a good way. If you replaced the word “limited” with “responsible” then I’d be in 100% agreement. The majority of the time a lack of regulation, a lack of oversight, precede a major economic downturn. Capitalism running unchecked always corrects itself on the backs of the those that can least afford it. That is where the government must be; between the citizens it is charged to serve, and the forces that seek to undo us through ignorance, inaction, indifference, or malice.
5. Invoking the Founding Fathers as a blockade against the conventions of progress is a tired and specious endeavor. While the Industrial Revolution was rounding into form as they lived and died, it seems unlikely that they could have anticipated the rise of the multinational corporation (though churches of the time shared many of the same characteristics), the dominance of the stock market, and the equalizing effects of globalization.
As an example, the US wage earner is significantly better compensated than those of other countries for similar work. The disparity is too great to be allowed to equalize on its own unless one wishes to see the US collapse entirely. The only entity with the size and scope to handle the responsibility of buttressing this inequality is the US government. This is a temporary role, but a necessary one.
6. Attributing the Communist theme of “central planning” to President Obama is a blatant appeal to emotion; namely, anger. Where, exactly, do you draw the conclusion that President Obama advocates central planning? Please provide specific examples from the State of the Union speech since you made specific reference to it. I’ve read it, and I cannot find language that supports this conclusion.
7. The closing paragraph of your post makes several unsupported claims. Among them the hyberbolic statement is made that “the man recognizes no constitutional restraints.” After witnessing the recent power grab by the Executive Branch from 2001-2008, it is somewhat surprising that the status quo maintained by this Administration could be characterized as reckless or imperialistic.
I look forward to your rebuttal and the chance to continue an earnest debate.
Sean, first let me thank you for a long and thoughtful comment.
Point #1: Much of your complaints with this post seem to regard semantics. Because our use of words must almost always be somewhat imprecise, we end up arguing over our word choices and meaning. When Obama made his references to dreams, that was an emotional appeal designed to mean different things to different people. I expect that he hoped his supporters would hear what they each wanted to hear.
Point #2: In practice, what does it mean when we say “all (dreams) deserve the chance to be fulfilled.” Is that not about redistributing the wealth?
We each have the right to work on own dreams. What we do not have is the right to force others to work upon our dreams. That is what redistributing the wealth means, and redistributing the wealth is what Obama has been doing.
With respect to Blog Ethic #5, this post was an editorial, not newsgathering. To call Obama a busybody is an appropriate editorial comment. When somebody steals, we call them a thief. When somebody abuses their power and “redistributes the wealth,” the kindest thing we can call them is “busybody.”
Point #3: The vast majority of government spending goes into health, education and welfare programs. The Constitution gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to spend our money on Medicare, Social Security, the Dept. of Education, and so forth.
I did not like TARP, and I do not defend it. Most of the things our government does to help the poor ends up helping the rich, the truly rich, not what a Democrat calls the rich.
Point #4: Power corrupts. Without limited government, we cannot have responsible government.
Point #5: Read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. What government can do to help the economy is actually quite limited. What government exists to do is protect our rights, to maintain justice. That is what the Founders set up the Federal Government to do, and our economy boomed. The rules of economics have not changed.
Point #6: Look at the speech. Obama set both economic and education goals. Unless he proposes something akin to a command economy, he cannot guarantee any such goals. Even when what he wants to do clearly violates the Constitution, Obama is not content to let us make our own choices and spend our own money. When spending is already sky high, he talked about more spending and tax increases.
Consider the difference between the rule of law and rule by men.
Point #7: Did you read what you wrote? You talk about the “recent power grab by the Executive Branch from 2001-2008.” Where is the support for that?
When we discuss something, we must assume that the other party has at least some knowledge of the subject. Perhaps you are unaware of the recent health care legislation, the attempts to pass Cap and Tax, the $1.5 trillion deficit, and so forth, but I doubt it. I think you are confusing a rebuttal with asking for information you really do not need.
Thanks for the a well-considered, intelligent response. I’m going to assume that since you didn’t dispute your use of logical fallacies that you consider their use to be acceptable in debate. I’d rather they weren’t used. If an argument is sound, it doesn’t need deception to influence the reader.
Regarding semantics, I do not accept that language must always be somewhat imprecise. It is difficult enough that the idea stated is read and understood as intended. If we allow a further imprecision in the delivery (perhaps we allow “hopes” and “dreams” to mean the same thing) then what chance do we have of ever arriving at something approaching agreement? Why, one might expect a perfectly reasonable word, like “compromise,” to fall into disuse because of some ridiculous connotation. Imagine that!
If one can assume (as you do) that the President’s supporters would hear what they wanted to hear, one might reasonably assume that detractors would hear what they wanted to hear as well.
As your editorializing makes clear, you are a detractor. Would I be correct then to assume that in the State of the Union address you heard what you wanted to hear? Probably, which makes the whole point of this debate meaningless. The logical outcome of this line of thinking is that nothing is unless you say it is. You probably win a lot of arguments.
On the role of the US governement in the economy, I agree with the writings of Adam Smith that the government can do little to spark the economy. Note that Engels has something credible to say on the subject of the economy as well, and I disagree that the rules of the economy have not changed. I doubt Adam Smith could conceive of hedge fund managers, a person that produces no goods only an uneeded service, and grows obscenely wealthy by it at the expense of investors. The invisible hand is still at work, but the truth is that it is more Bernie Madoff than John Pierpoint Morgan. I will restate a point on which I think we agree; the government must be between the citizens it is charged to serve, and the forces that seek to undo them through ignorance, inaction, indifference, or malice. Perhaps you agree with the statement, but disagree on the discharge of this particular duty.
If you agree that some government intervention is necessary, and thereby agree that the government is necessary, do you simply acknowledge that it is corrupt by nature, and merely try to restrict the corruption by limiting its size? This is certainly a realistic point of view, but I have not accepted that it is an inevitable consequence.
Perhaps you are right that health care, education, and other cabinet-level departments have overreached and should scale back to allow the states and the open market to pick winners and losers. If this is true, then wouldn’t President Obama simply be perpetuating policies put in place and supported by every president since at least 1932? Unless one wants complete chaos, one does not simply undo 80 years of governement overreach. Imagine the power vacuum that would be created. A more measured approach must be taken, and I believe that President Obama believes this as well.
Finally, I think we will have to come to some agreement on what constitutes supporting claims. I don’t look at President Obama’s record and draw the same conclusions as you. So I guess we’ll agree to disagree on that. As for my claim of the Bush Administration’s expansion of Executive Branch power, see the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, inventing a legal rationale for torture, extrajudicial domestic surveillance, rendition, manipulation of press credentials (remember Jeff Gannon), and Vice President Cheney’s secret energy task force. All of this is in the public domain. As you stated, why would I provide information that is so easily obtainable, and is universally accepted as true?
Thanks for the chance to explore these issues. I apologize if my posts tend to be long-winded. I do not possess the gift of brevity.
You think that I consider the use of logical fallacies acceptable in debate? And you don’t accept the proposition that the use of language must always be somewhat imprecise?
If you do not like the way President Barack Obama equated hopes with dreams, please take that up with him. I did not hold that against him. I don’t expect perfect communication. Communication is an engineering and a human problem. Here is a website that summarizes the difficulties involved.
When we are talking about politics we run into inevitable communication issues that have to do with trust. After two years in office, Obama has given me little reason to trust him. I am not one of his detractors. I have no use for the connotation of that word; I did not go looking for flaws in our president. Nevertheless, I am not one of Obama’s fans. In 2012, I will be happy to vote him out of office. I just hope and dream our next president is better.
Do hedge fund managers produce an unneeded service? Instead of using a loaded expression such as “hedge fund manager,” let’s use the term “investment.” Obama liked that term. Are investments needed. Do we want politicians to take all our hard-earned wealth and invest it for us? Would you rather pick your own investment manager, or would you rather foolish and uninformed voters do it for you? Those voters worked hard for your money. Right? They will protect it and make certain you get it all back with interest. Right?
Many of the entities that function in our economy are government creations we call collectives. That is, without government intervention, they either could not exist or they would operate quite differently. That includes corporations, cooperatives, nonprofit charities, and unions. When you complain about hedge funds and operators such as John Pierpoint Morgan, keep in mind that government taxes and regulations substantially distort how these people operate. Don’t you realize that the Federal Reserve and dozens government operations such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must inevitably produce weird distortions in the economy? Don’t you realize that the truly rich benefit the most from these government produced economic distortions?
Want another example? Consider economies of scale. Some operations benefit from large scale operations. Car making, for example. Education, on the other hand, is a very personal endeavor. Without government intervention, huge schools have little reason to exist.
As a Conservative, I am not anti-government. There is nothing Conservative about promoting chaos. What I am against is government that abuses our rights instead of protecting our rights. For example, nobody, not even the government, has the right to rob people. When voters use government to tax their neighbors as a substitute for honest charity, that is robbery. Redistributing the wealth is nothing more than legalized thievery.
Is Obama perpetuating thievery that has been in place since at least 1932? Yes. He is also piling on his own schemes. When I want 80 years of government overreach (abuses of power) reversed, there is no way I can support what Obama advocated in his State Of The Union address.
You don’t like what Bush did? That is your right, but I fail to see any relationship to Obama’s speech. Given, for the sake of discussion, that Bush abused his power, does that make it acceptable for Obama to abuse his power? Do two wrongs make a right?
Anyway, I thank you for visiting. Come again.
I fear we are getting a few too many topics going at once.
For clarification, I mentioned President Bush in my post at 3:38 PM today and the abuses of power in response to Point #7 in your post from 9:57 AM today. I don’t draw any comparisons. I will consider that point closed unless you wish to discuss further.
Second point of clarification; I do not think President Obama equated hopes with dreams. I think you did. He said, “we share common hopes and a common creed.” You wrote, “we do not all share the same dreams.” Common hopes and common dreams are not the same thing. That is the imprecision of language to which I object. You took the trouble to cut and paste his remarks into your post, and then you still incorrectly paraphrased him as the jumping off point for your post. By the way, I don’t expect perfect communication. I expect each of us to try. Unless you wish to discuss this further I will consider this closed as well. I did pick up on the “hope and dream” our next president is better. Funny.
On to hedge fund managers which are a subset of investment bankers. I know a little about investing, and I don’t aim to malign the entire industry. There are many of them that are conscientious and very good at what they do, my wife among them. I specifically call out those that prevent the market from operating in an efficient manner. I encourage you to read some Michael Lewis. I highly recommend Liar’s Poker and The Big Short. I fear greed as a motivator. It makes me wary of anyone who controls large sums of money without oversight; be they banker, politician, or bureaucrat.
Further, I wasn’t complaining about John Pierpoint Morgan (I guess I’m not communicating effectively). I was using him as the best example I had of conscience in business, the exact opposite of Bernie Madoff.
Do you read the Mises Economics Blog? I wonder how much you would agree with it.
I will leave any other points off this post in hopes that the narrative is consistent, and my arguments are clearly presented.
Sean
I went back and looked at reference to John Pierpoint Morgan. With respect to Morgan, I misconstrued your meaning. Sorry.
With respect to Bush, I would be happy to close the subject. As alternative to Kerry and Gore, I voted for the man.
Bush styled himself as a “Compassionate” Conservative, not just a plain ordinary Conservative. Therefore he gave Conservatives little reason to take his Conservativism too seriously. I just hoped he would not do anything extraordinary (for a modern president).
Bush surprised us twice. He dug in his heels on Iraq, and he initiated that infernal TARP. Otherwise, Bush just added a few more wasteful spending programs. That does not seem to provide much reason drag him into every discussion about Obama. Any insights?
You don’t think Obama equated hope and dreams? Don’t our dreams express our hopes? That is why I took issue with this clause.
So he can fulfill the dreams of a little girl, Obama want us to give him all the power and money he wants. That is good national policy?
I do not have much expertise in investment banking, but I do know that there is a high degree of government involvement and regulation. Is there greed too? Of course.
I have not read Liar’s Poker and The Big Short, but I will readily concede that Greed is a problem. However, when people risk only their only wealth, greed is less of a problem. When government is involved, and we empower our officials to risk everyone’s wealth, greed becomes a big problem. It is unfortunate, but people, politicians included, find it much easier to risk other people’s money.
Thanks for the suggestion to check out the Mises Economics Blog.
Comparisons between Bush and Obama are inevitable though the two are much more alike in practice than their respective theories would have us believe. I’ll leave it at that.
Do I think Obama equated hopes and dreams? No, I do not. Going to back to #1 in my original rebuttal;
“President Obama did not claim that we all share the same dream. What he said was “that we share common hopes and a common creed.” It seems to me that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” would qualify as a hope and a creed. That is something we all have in common, as you freely admit. In contrast, a little girl in Tucson having dreams “not so different than those of our own children” is allegorical as you surely must be aware. It is representative of a basic ideal that we all want a better life for our children; that their dreams have a chance to be fulfilled.”
I don’t think Obama has any illusions about granting wishes or answering prayers. I take his speech to mean that the American ideal should include equality of opportunity.
Closing on the topic of investment banking, the opportunity to play fast and loose with other people’s money is only slightly more difficult to do on Wall Street than it is on Capitol Hill.
Would you agree that more transparency, and a separation between corporation and state is desirous?
Sean – What Obama does is promote collectivism. Because he is the head of the collective, that gives him power. He mentioned the little girl in Tucson just to garner sympathy for his programs. Look at the rest of the speech. He just asked for more power to make certain HE can fulfill the dreams of little girls, and we are suppose to think HE is such a nice man. Hogwash!
Transparency has nothing to do with Obama. The only promises he keeps are those which empower him. You want separation between corporation and state? Then we must have less government.
Think about it. Which would you rather have, less government and the right to choose who you do business with or state run monopolies via crony capitalism?
Again, you’re guilty of multiple logical fallacies.
You present a false choice. The “right to choose who you do business with” ignores monopolistic practices frequently used over the history of the US; price fixing, discouraging open markets, and workforce exploitation. “State run monopolies via crony capitalism” ignores the fact that there are some functions that are best if they do not operate as a for-profit enterprise. Other possibilities exist and gross oversimplification does nothing to illuminate or educate. The challenge to the citizenry is that we must demand transparency and accountability. If we abandon our power as citizens, should we be surprised if it is used against us?
You are also guilty of a material fallacy known as “begging the question.” In short, your proposition is assumed in the premise. In simplest terms, your argument is that President Obama craves power because he is constantly asking that we grant him more power. The problem here is that you haven’t sufficiently proven that he seeks more power. All you have is your interpretation of events with which I do not agree. You appear to see a bill-signing as a power grab. I see government regulation and oversight as a responsibility of government on behalf of its citizens.
I propose the following if you are game. First, let’s define the argument. Is it your contention that President Obama is only interested in consolidating political power? If not, state the argument as you see it. Then present your strongest argument. We’ll continue rebuttals until the topic is exhausted, someone cries “uncle,” or one of us dies.
Sean – Multiple logical fallacies? Again? Does that mean I am expecially industrious?
Unfortunately, I am a bit busy with with something else. So please expect a response on Monday. I have an idea for a post – or two.
Pingback: FALSE STARTING ASSUMPTIONS – PART 1 | Citizen Tom