Obama Calls for 'Winning the Future' in State of the Union

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

President Obama delivers his second State of the Union address to Congress on Jan. 25th. (Brendan Smialowski/Getty)

In Tuesday’s State of the Union address, President Obama discussed his plans for job creation and increased American competitiveness in the global market during his next two years in office. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) delivered the official response on behalf of the Republican Party and stressed the need for spending cuts and his party’s skepticism about further “investments.” And there was a new feature to the evening: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) spoke on behalf of the Tea Party in their united response to the president.

David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker and author of “The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama,” responds to President Obama's second annual State of the Union address.

Guests:

David Remnick

Produced by:

Arwa Gunja and Mary Harris

Comments [3]

Not a bad speech, but let's not forget that legislation is controlled by the congress. I'd like to see if he holds true to his word to veto any bills with earmarks. In the meantime, the Republicans give lip service to cuts and streamlining the tax code but they had their chance before and are just as unlikely to do so today. The Democrats pretend to care about the deficit but their only answer is more taxes. Special interests still have the ear of the politicians far more than the public does so we are likely in for just more of the same lack of good government we've had for most, if not all of my 42 years of life.

Jan. 26 2011 11:17 AM
Nikos Retsos from Illinois

This state of the union address should have been labeled "STATE OF THE UNION FOR DUMMIES!" The American people proved in the recent congressional elections that have had enough of Obama's phony rhetoric. The Wall Street executives that have driven us into poverty and despair have gotten $ millions bonuses to steer our economy into the rocks, and $ millions of bonuses from the U.S. Treasury to re-float it. And, like John Dillinger, they know where the money is, "and how to take it out" - but legally! And even though almost nothing has changed since 2008, Obama sees progress and a promised land ahead - but he keeps the supposed big gains ahead as collateral for his 2012 re-election.

On the other side, the republicans are bound to tear his passed reforms, and scrap or stall any future plan that may help him re-elected. It is a tag-of-war, and the average Americans are the rope that is stretched to the limits of tolerance, a.ka. unemployment, foreclosures, a catatonic market economy, and promises made by Obama two years ago that they still don't see in the horizon. And I am sure, as they watched more of the same promises by Obama last night, and all those standing ovations for his "empty rhetoric," they all probably wondered: I have heard that before -quite a few times, Haven't I?

Yes America, you have. And you will hear it again, and again. And you should expect your suffering to continue, while those politicos { I use the Greek word here} who are responsible for your misery will keep receiving "standing ovations!" And they will continue to do that because "State of the Union For Dummies" addresses have proved to be an effective hypnotic for the population that works for them, not for you! Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Jan. 26 2011 11:08 AM
Dorothy from Bosotn

I don't understand why people are saying the President didn't say how he would pay for the investments in our future. I thought he was quite clear. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which is what caused the deficit in the first place, bringing our soldiers home from Iraq which will decrease Defense spending, cutting Defense as Gates has recommended, and eliminating the subsidies to the oil companies. How much more specific does he have to be? In addition, creating jobs through investment will increase the tax revenues as those newly employed workers pay income, Social Security & Medicare taxes. Am I missing something that others saw or isn't this enough in specifics?

Jan. 26 2011 09:53 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.