State of the Union Prequel

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:42:41 AM EST
Tags: SOTU (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Obama's State of the Union speech is tonight. He's expected to lay out a strategy for getting around Congress to implement some of his goals.

Obama will make clear in his 9 p.m. (0200 GMT Wednesday) address that he is willing to bypass U.S. lawmakers and go it alone in some areas by announcing a series of executive actions that do not require congressional approval.

..."What you'll hear in the speech tonight is very concrete, realistic proposals as it relates to wages, as it relates to education, as it relates to training, high-tech manufacturing, retirement security, those are the things that he's focused on," White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said on NBC's "Today Show."

He will mostly focus on economic issues and once again ask Congress to act on immigration reform, and of course, he'll plug ObamaCare. [More...]

According to a Wall St. Journal poll,

.... 68 percent of Americans say[] the country is either stagnant or worse off since Obama took office.

It doesn't sound like he intends to focus on any criminal justice issues.

< Ray Nagin Corruption Trial Starts Monday | Tuesday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

State of the Union Prequel | 74 comments (74 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The State of the Union is ... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Peter G on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 12:08:31 PM EST

in mourning for the loss of Pete Seeger.

Turn, turn, turn (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by christinep on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 12:24:46 PM EST

'Just watched the master singing with huge smile in his 90s. Tears for him come easily; and, as he knew, love and laughter then follow in its season.

A fruitful happenstance, it seems, that the President will use his executive powers to raise minimum wage for federally employed workers to $10, and announce it in the State of the Union. And, as we work to extend that human step for workers throughout this land that is ours, we should recall from what indefatigable Pete sang so often: "I'm sticking with the Union."


Minimum wage (2.00 / 1) (#5)
by Slado on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 01:44:08 PM EST

Only 1.7% of our workforce earns the Federal Minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage will do nothing to help inequality or improve the economy. IMHO it will cause eventually fewer people to be employed because some low wage jobs will disappear in the long run and increase unemployment for the people we are supposed to be helping. Mix in our propose ranch of handouts and we will see the bar continue to be lowered on what we expect in terms of an acceptable unemployment rate no matter how you measure it.

Befor the invention of the minimum wage black unemployment was actually lower then white unemployment. Thanks to FDR and LBJ that is no longer the case. Great job guys.

So will Obama make this pitch tonight?

Of course he will because Obama is not about solving actual problems he's about symbolism and talking points.


Oh, brother. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Anne on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 02:10:34 PM EST

What percentage of people are making more than $7.25/hour but less than $10/hour? Because if the MW is raised to $10/hour, everyone below that is going to get a raise - and I'm pretty sure it's more than 1.7% of workers.

The additional dollars that people earn with a pay raise get returned to the economy in the form of spending. That creates demand, and demand creates jobs.

Upward cycle, not downward.

Here, take a look at this map, color coded to show what the states' minimum wage levels are compared to the federal rate - the same, higher than, lower than - and which have no minimum wage.


Whatever the percentage (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by christinep on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 02:59:58 PM EST

it is well-established that millions of people make only the minimum wage. And, as for the coverage of this expected Presidential EO, the amount of real people to be covered will number in the hundreds of thousands.

What confounds me, even after all these years, are characters like Slado purports to be ... an individual who almost flippantly disregards the real lives that will be positively effected by the astute maneuver of this upcoming Executive Order. For the life of me, I cannot fathom how anyone can then ignore that this extra money each week will provide that much more food for family, that much more near-necessities for the many children involved, that much more $$$ into the economy to purchase the little things that so many of us take for granted. People can learn such basic economic realities through different paths. One of the harshest paths is the real path of having been there as a child (trans: Anytime you want to talk about the reality of minimum wage in the household, I can accommodate that discussion, Slado ...even tho my Dad & sister & I only faced and lived it for a few years early on, that experience of the reality of anticipating "now we can make the rent easier" is an experience that is strongly imprinted and opens up empathy.)

Thanks for your statement, Anne. Well-said.

And, as for you, Slado, try to see the lives in front of you. Leave the ideology for awhile; and, look around.


He Must Be Part of That Group... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 03:32:53 PM EST

...who 'helps' McDonald workers with their budgets, you know, how much to tip the nanny and pool man, along with $20/mth for heating and insurance...

But well put, who cares about the percentage, 1% is a lot of fricken food on the table where none exists today.

For anyone understanding that this amount is most certainly going to keep some people from getting government aid should be enough for them, but then again, I think they just like have people they can talk S about all day long; the moocher class to kick around and the problem with America(not my words).


I suppose the recent barrage of (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Anne on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 03:34:14 PM EST

conservative thought/ideology here has the effect of helping us hone our counter-arguments, but I have to say that it is getting quite aggravating to have to deal with people who believe the kinds of things we're reading from them.

No amount of showing them that their ideas just don't work the way they always claim they will doesn't seem to budge them.

It makes me think they've never tried to actually live on minimum wage, never had the experience of working hard, sometimes at multiple jobs, and have the additional stress of knowing they still weren't bringing in enough to pay the bills.

If they have, then I truly don't understand, unless it's a case of having to keep others down in order to feel bigger.

They can call me a bleeding-heart all they want, but I refuse to be the kind of person who yammers on about the preciousness of life while taking food out of the mouths of children, and calling hard-working people "lazy" because the only way they can survive is to seek assistance from the government to supplement their minimum wages.


: What Is Odd To Me... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 03:54:06 PM EST

...is there is a conservative microcosm right here in the US, it's called the deep south, where anyone of their policies have been enacted and can be witnessed in real time.
That color map clearly states your point, states that have lower than Federal minimum wages are perfect examples of what happens when points that people like Slado make, actually happen.
They never match the ideological belief/charade.

The boo hoo argument? (none / 0) (#31)
by Slado on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 09:38:39 PM EST

Spare me.

What about the people who can't get a job because there are none out there?

What about the teenagers who don't earn valuable work skills because the government requires store owners or small employers to pay them more then they're worth?

I care very much for my fellow human being and don't see charity through government mandate as the only way to show it. This rich vs poor argument by the left is tired and by my observation failing the poor.

Sometimes I wonder if the complete and utter destruction of the poor is the goal of the left because nothing has done as good a job of making their lives miserable as the policies they've been enacting for the last 50 years.

I simply reject your high horse argument because it flies in the face of reality. Poor people need opportunities, not more handouts and policies that hurt the majority, like the minimum wage.

Agree to disagree but save the moral outrage. I could be equally as outraged at the havoc the left has brought onto the poor with their misguided policies.


Yes, that's what they were saying (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by Anne on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:42:39 PM EST

in 1938, when the Fair Labor Standards Act set a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour.

It's really very simple: if you don't want the government giving "handouts," then you should be in favor of raising the minimum wage.

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain about handouts AND defend employers who use the minimum wage as an excuse for not paying their employees enough so they don't need the assistance. Because that's why we have these laws in the first place - to protect the worker from employers' unfair labor practices.

We can't all be CEOs, or middle managers, or doctors or lawyers; some of us have to be janitors and salespeople, and dishwashers and day care workers and fast food workers. We expect everyone who has a job to do it well: we want the mall bathroom to be clean, we want the salesperson to be helpful, we want clean dishes in restaurants and the lines to move quickly at lunchtime. We don't want to do these jobs ourselves, but we want the people who have them to do them as if they were making the same kind of money we are.

It isn't "charity" for the government to provide the full-time minimum wage worker with help to feed her family or buy heating oil - it's humane.

Which is the reason the right hasn't been able to sell its policies, try as they might. You don't get it. You say you do, but you really don't.


The hands off approach (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by MKS on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:54:32 PM EST

let the Robber Barons run the show was rejected long ago. And the Great Depression cemented the role of government in the economy. The great strides the Middle Class in this country occurred with significant governmental assistance.

Bill Clinton's speech at the 2012 Democratic Convention really gave a good synopsis of the argument.


Ever hear of Costco? (none / 0) (#33)
by nycstray on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 09:52:04 PM EST

Crocodile tears (none / 0) (#34)
by Slado on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:10:36 PM EST

I like the way Reason Magazine makes my argument.

If we really cared about the poor we'd be trying to figure out how to make more jobs available for them. Not on how to make sure there are fewer in the future.


Yes, well, why don't you do that? Why (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Anne on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:51:57 PM EST

don't you show us all the plans and initiatives and proposals the right has to create jobs. Come on, don't be shy - what does the Republican leadership propose that's ever been shown to, you know, work the way you keep saying it will?

Near as I can tell, the plan is - as it always seems to be - to find more ways for employers to keep more of the money the labor of their workers helps make - with the constant refrain that the more wealth they have, the more jobs they can create. Except they don't, do they? Because as much as they have, it's never enough for some of them. Why hire more people when you can get the ones you have to work harder?

I hate to tell you, but this crap you keep trying to peddle here is never going to sell. Mainly because it's crap.


I'm a results oriented guy Anne (none / 0) (#38)
by Slado on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:38:09 PM EST

And the policies of LBJ and FDR before him have done nothing but hurt the poor in the long run.

War on the Poor

You can call it "crap" I call it reality. When I was a Clinton voting college student my dad told me that in his mind LBJ single handily ruined black and white poor society I thought he was crazy. 20 years later I now realize that that "crap" he was saying was just simple common sense.

The good intentions of LBJ ran up against the realities of social science and economics. You simply can't make poverty go away through regulations and mandates. In fact you just make it worse.

All that being said on the specific issue of minimum wage we should just set the rate and pin it to inflation so at least it's a constant the market can work around. We'll just have to accept that young black unemployment will be 40% or higher for now on because bleeding hearts like yours need to know that a few people will get a few more bucks in their pocket. No matter what the cost is to everybody else in hype long run. Better to have a few better paying jobs I guess then more lousy paying ones.

As for your having it both ways statement I'm not sure what you mean. I believe we should have a social safety net that is just enough to help families while they are between jobs or are completely disabled (like my brother) but with that we need economic growth and opportunity for the poor and right now the policies of the left in my view are keeping that from happening. Regulations, work rules, and government interference mKe entry into the labor market too hard for the poor and they are forced into the growing welfare state.

Does it not reflect on how poorly our government is helping the poor that so many are forced to choose assistance over work? I don't believe for one minute that most would rather work but our incentives are so out of which that for far too many it's the only sensible option.

I could go on but you need to do some more reading on this before you start throwing around the "crap" word with me.


: Typo (none / 0) (#39)
by Slado on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:40:40 PM EST

I don't believe most "wouldn't" want to work.

: What is so compelling (none / 0) (#53)
by christinep on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:25:15 AM EST

is the observation made so recently by one very concerned with the travails and indignities suffered by the poorest among us. Pope Francis has publicly challenged the stale trope used by those who resist change, employed by those who keep chanting that there must be a "trickle down" from accumulating $$$$ at the top and among society's moneyed elite. This compassionate and learned man, Pope Francis, has bluntly asserted his broad-based experiential observation that--unfortunately--the accumulation of $$$$ at the top or water in the glass only gets fuller for those same moneyed individuals. The Pope goes on to address the need for systemic change--in addition to the occasional charitable giving that occurs--in order to progress as people of good will.
Slado: Economists can be found to support just about any position. We all know that. FWIW, I'll take the observations of Pope Francis about compassionate behavior any day.

In a society such as ours, there is a place (none / 0) (#36)
by christinep on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:53 PM EST

for morality and moral arguments ... whether you like it or not, Slado.

Your background must indeed be fascinating. Living while disdaining "moral outrage" is truly even more fascinating.


And ya know . . . (none / 0) (#9)
by nycstray on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 03:03:58 PM EST

it might actually reduce the number of 'lazy workers' on food stamps and other government aid (WIC comes to mind).

A certain percentage of America seems to be getting dumber by the hour. Sadly, it's not a small percentage.


Aye, indeed (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Zorba on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 04:49:53 PM EST

Pete Seeger was the soundtrack of my youth. He will be missed.


You don't have to be pro-Republican... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by unitron on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 08:16:31 PM EST

...or think that we'd have been better off electing McCain in '08, to be somewhat in agreement with that 68%.

What ? (none / 0) (#3)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 12:47:38 PM EST

"68 percent of Americans say the country is either stagnant or worse off since Obama took office"

I am not fan of Obama, but come on, do they not have 401k's or any money invested in the stock market, do they not own homes, WTF ?

After some serious digging, here is the question/answers:

Compared to when Barack Obama became President--do you think that the country is (ROTATE) - better
off, worse off - or in about the same place?
Better off 31
Worse off 39
Same place 29
Not sure 1

That is simply insane to me, I guess the GWB disaster is all but forgotten and homes/investments being a faction of what they are today is simply not something a lot of people think about. Never mind Iraq and Afghanistan either, maybe people really are fed up with the NSA BS. I don't know, but those numbers are just hard to swallow.

Upon further review, the answers to the same question on 08/10:
Better off 31
Worse off 40
Same place 28
Not sure 1

And right before the election, 9/12:
Better off 38
Worse off 41
Same place 21
Not sure 0

No comment other than the numbers are nearly identical to 2010.

The stagnation int he numbers is really (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by ruffian on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 04:14:59 PM EST

interesting.

I can see why people don't look at their 401k stock holdings as a reliable gauge of their well being. 401k investments can disappear in a heartbeat the next time the financial industry takes our holdings to the casino.


More explanations for why (none / 0) (#22)
by ruffian on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 04:23:54 PM EST

people aren't getting a warm fuzzy feeling from their 401ks.

Not casting blame, just explaining.


Well... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:01:07 AM EST

...it's pretty hard to argue with people who think financial advisers are hokum, which covers at least 8 of the points made. I will never understand why people think they don't need them, especially as they age.

What is the answer, force people to contribute, not allow borrow or cash out their life savings, I mean seriously.

I know you were not defending it, but that list is pretty weak tea. 401k's are very good so long as you have the most basic understanding of compounding interest and investing, and for the love of god, realize it's you future, not your present, and view it as untouchable. That is until you are of the age where there are no penalties for withdrawals, aka retirement.

Paying 10% penalty to cash it out to make car/house/credit card payments to me is silly. Take the credit hit and know that no matter what life throws at you, no matter how low your credit score is, you will at the very least never be living social security check to SS check at 70.

I don't feel any one of those points are valid, but that does make sense as to why people aren't happy with them.


: All your points are excellent Scott (none / 0) (#46)
by CoralGables on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:11:10 AM EST

It is an easy out (none / 0) (