President Obama gave a good speech and was very concise as he usually is with optimism in good measure.

The speech had imposing realities, but, the President managed to address those realities with dignity.

The President focused on aspriations to provide our nation's children with promising futures in a highly competitive world where currently the USA simply is not up to the task.

The President recognizes the need for all members of the House and Senate to work together to actually accomplish the needs of the nation.

His focus on jobs and the deficit was 'spot on.'  It was obvious, although not directly stated, the key to reducing the debt is by returning good jobs wtih longevity to Americans.  In establishing a vigorous 'job economy' the national debt will come into reach.  To shrink government for the sake of shrinking government is ideological and does not provide a better path for the country.

The President stated, the 'operating infrastructure' of the federal government is laborious and redundant.  It is 'aged' and 'outdated' without recognizing the technology that exists to modernize it.  I simply thought the 'Salmon Example' was wonderful.  It almost sounds as though the federal infrastructure operates as separate nations rather than a streamlined and concise form of administration.

The deficit reduction was well addressed.  The 'idea' that improving the Affordable Health Care Act was a priority where it is needed.  I thought Secretary Sebilius was not looking her best.  I thought she looked sad, but, that might have to do with the Congresswoman.  I am sure there are members of the government that feel the distress of the Gabby's circumstances more than others.  Perhaps with her background and focus Secretary Sebilius was effected and it showed.  I would love to hear her speak on the ongoing process her department is engaged in and how it is going.  Upto today, we only get snapshots of what the Department of Health and Human Services is undergoing to institute the changes to the nation as legislated under the new law.  I think it would be helpful if she spoke at length and/or issues an 'operational' statement specifically addressing 'facts' and 'figures' in these years of transition.  It would remove some of the mystery and myth that floats around the country.  At any rate, I hope she is doing well, her job is going smoothly and she is not hounded or harassed in her responsibilities.

Secretary Gates had an ear to ear smile at the beginning of the evening.  Hillary looked good.  Secretary of Energy was his dashing self.  His department was highlighted tonight with young entrepreneurs leading innovation in alternative energies for the nation.

The mised seating was refreshing.  At some points in the speech there seemed to be a great deal of discussion going on in the house.  I didn't notice Chief Justice Roberts among the Justices and of course Scalia and Alito saw no reason to attend.  At least one of them can't contain his political activism at these events, so rather than being impeachable he decided to make money at a speaking engagement instead.  That was probably a wise career choice.

My complete impression is that I am in agreement with all if not everything the President stated on all subjects including mass transit.  It was good to hear how we weren't expanding war, but, ending it.  The soldiers are coming home with dignity except for nearly 5000 that didn't make it back home alive from Iraq.  Of course, Afghanistan is an ongoing concern.  I really believe Afghanistan is more a NATO and UN agenda item rather than a USA priority.  The trouble is more a 'regional' problem with fluid borders and odd economic dynamics.  The Taliban is a problem.  It is primarily the Taliban that remains the problem and that is a global focus, especially since they are actively seeking to disrupt entire important cities such as Punjab.

It was a good speech.

I listened to Mr. Ryan's response.  He made some deliberate 'mis-statements' such as the EPA has a Cap and Trade agenda.  That is a gross error in what the EPA is engaged in and what their authority is to even consider such hideous notions.  I wish the Republicans would not interject lies to their point of view. It was grossly out of step with bipartisan objectives. 

Rep. Bachman really was in opposition to most of what Mr. Ryan had to say and it only proves how divided the GOP sincerely has become.  There really are two parties regardless of the Bachman statements otherwise.  She almost needed Rove's White Board for all the 'structural' differences and rhetoric she engaged in.

I simply hope the House will find a way to be 'real' and 'reasonable' and keep the future of our children in mind to rebuild this country.  The national debt is a concern, but, addressing it dysfunctionally would only create more problems for our children and not less.

I believe the President did a remarkable job in addressing all the 'topics' circulating in the country with his usual concise focus and good sense of humor.  Well done.

Michelle was her usual lovely self and gracious hostess to all the guests.

Unlike Wall Street, the States need to 'produce' more income to 'reinfuse' their pension funds.

No BAILOUTS for the States.  They actually have a lot of power to move their investments to higher earnings.  It is the 'RISK' that needs to be monitored.

The pensions to public employees are actually some of the reason why their wages are a lower cost to consumers.  It is DELAYED gratification.  In all honesty, this is a FIDUCIARY promise to the public employees and it needs to be respected.

The one thing that bothers me and I am sure Bernanke and the Fed are looking at it, is the small inflation in the economy due to higher oil and gas costs (Production costs), including food. 

The States need to get their act together, which isn't easy in a hostile political environment and FUND their pensions soon, before The Fed is forced to start raising interest rates to stem inflation that might be hidden in the energy costs.

...“Private equity fundraising should pick up this year,” said Joncarlo Mark, senior portfolio manager at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest U.S. public pension plan, with $226 billion of assets. “Other asset classes may outperform their benchmarks, but public plans still need the extra pop from private equity to get out of the holes they’re in.”...

The fastest growing JOB as of 2009 is the Registered Nurse with good salaries. What was that about the health care job destroying bill?

Fastest-growing jobs have low pay (click title to entry - thank you)

August 31, 2010|By Property of The OC Register

Four of the five fastest-growing job categories from 2006 to 2009 paid less than the U.S. median wage of $15.95 an hour, reports the Economic Policy Institute....

Cutting government payrolls ACTUALLY equates to higher costs to consumers !!!

Public employees AND their unions are not interested in gouging taxpayers.  They are taxpayers, too.

...Keefe offered some suggestions (click here) for why these public employees are often perceived to be overcompensated. For starters, public sector workers are, as a group, more highly educated, work in more highly paid occupations and they tend to work moderately fewer hours than those in the private sector. In addition, it is frequently noted that public employees earn more in benefits such as health care and pensions: therefore, a simple wage comparison will not accurately capture difference in total compensation. Nonetheless, after controlling for multiple factors including level of education, hours worked and non-cash compensation, Keefe found that, on average, full-time state and local employees are undercompensated compared to “otherwise similar private-sector workers.”...

Private sector job growth depends on increased demand for services.  The 'opportunity' to grow those jobs depends on CAPITAL available 'TO EVEN GO THERE.'

I always have to laugh when I hear how cutting government SPENDING is going to increase jobs and income to the business sector.  Really?  Where EXACTLY is the 'capital' coming from to increase the ABILITY for small businesses to increase their production, increase jobs and increase the tax base? 

EXACTLY WHERE?

Where?

From the EXACT place that prints the currency and distributes the funds THROUGH GOVERNMENT SPENDING, that's where.

The BANKS are getting FUNDING from the GOVERNMENT to facilitate increased opportunity for increased productivity, job growth and increased tax base THAT WILL PAY THE DEBT.  Now, everyone want to try this AGAIN?  Without the nonsense, this time!

A full year ago this MEASURE was proposed and then acted on by a majority Democratic legislature.  It is NOW taking effect. 

Hello?

Nothing happens overnight except sex.

Banks to Get $30 Billion for Small Business Loans  (CLICK HERE)

Treasury says its new fund, an idea in the 2010 State of the Union address, will soon start pumping capital into community banks

Policy January 24, 2011, 2:50PM EST

During his last State of the Union, President Barack Obama trumpeted a new $30 billion fund designed to boost small business lending....

...Now the money from the Small Business Lending Fund is about to start flowing, with investments expected to be made in the first quarter, according to Jason Tepperman, the Treasury program's director...

SPECIFICS, not rhetoric. "Cut and Grow.' Huh?

We have heard the rhetoric before.  It always comes WITHOUT specifics.  WHERE are the jobs going to SPROUT from when government jobs are cut?

Where are there MORE jobs when government JOBS are cut?

Where IS our 'tax base' going to increase that will provide for more income to PAY DOWN THE DEBT when AN EXISTING TAX BASE of government employees lose their jobs? 

What will occur with unemployment and the NEWLY unemployed?

When rhetoric 'takes over' the dialogue in the media the result are responses to past experience that has proven TO BE TRUE. 

Where is THE LONG TERM COMMITMENT by businesses to ADD jobs to the USA economy that will actually provide for deficit reduction and debt payment? 

SPECIFICS, not rhetoric.  We want facts and figures and solid CONTRACTURAL promises and not MANIPULATION of 'heart strings' placed in 'faux hopes' that end up in heartache and disappointment.

...Wealthy business (click title to entry - thank you) is not passing down the wealth by hiring more people, (middle class) workers. They are putting all their savings by this policy into their own pockets.

The tax cuts only profit their companies, giving them more profits. Without these taxes, they are not contributing the money needed for a good education for out future generations, and health care, which they can afford the very best, but the middle and low income cannot. They don't want any regulations on big business — let them pollute anything and everything.

Let the rich keep filling their pockets only, not ours....

Raising the age of 'eligibility' to SSI is more than just a legislative agenda item.

This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paper, (click title to entry - thank you)  prepared at the request of the Committee on Ways and Means minority, provides material relevant to that debate. In particular, it contains new information about the characteristics, circumstances, and financial resources of men and women who began receiving Social Security benefits at age 62 or 63 in recent years. In accordance with CBO's mandate to provide objective and impartial analysis, this paper contains no recommendations....

This is the measure that raised the age in 1999 to 65 for FULL benefits.  There is 'merit' to the idea, however, it is not without problems that will cause citizens 'legitimate' concerns.

To begin, whenever the age of full eligibility is raised THAT means, there has to be MORE JOBS in the economy to accommodate the 'continuation'of income by those still ABLE to work.  In a struggling economy that needs 'permanent' jobs developed; that pay 'good wages;' that is nearly impossible to 'realize.' 

So, the proposal has to be accompanied by a strict understanding as to what the 'joblessness' rate is in the USA and the demographics of that rate.

Simply put, when people stay in jobs longer they tend to be paid more than 'new' employees to government or the private sector. THAT is a paradigm shift that impacts THE YOUNG PEOPLE entering the job market AND the advancement of existing employees, the 'bottom line' of the companies and the cost to government.

THERE IS A LOT TO IT.

When the eligibility of SSI increases by one month per year for the next thirty-six years that is a 'soft landing' for that paradigm shift, HOWEVER, the shift will occur and there needs to be an understanding as to the 'definition' of that paradigm shift.  AND how it impacts labor, business, government and ultimately the 'quality of life' of Americans.

When retriement is postponed there is also a huge impact on the tourism economy and 'service workers.' 

To simply state moving the age of eligibility by one month per year for the next thirty-six years will FIX the SSI entitlement problems is NOT addressing the larger dynamic at work that it will impact.

That is a simplistic idea that is NOT acceptable in any way, especially in the year 2011 when there is a 'soft economy' in the USA.

Working to the benefit of raising the FULL benefit eligibility age will also take on the dynamic of an ever increasing 'disability' benefit payout as a percentage of older adults will be unable to continue to the age of 68.  That means the eligibility of Medicare and Medicaid will be effected as well and it might even push some older adults into a disability benefit if they thought they could 'see it through' to the full benefit age of 65.

There are a lot of 'variables' in this equation and all that needs to be PRESENTED the correct way to allow the legislature to make intelligent decisions about the 'proper' deployment of such a paradigm shift.

No one wants to force older adults to lose their savings or homes or assets of any nature simply because the federal government decided to 'play politics' with their 'eligibility.' 

So. 

That said, what EXACTLY are "The Pauls' talking about.

If one wants to understand Europe than read about Europe everyday. The European INFLUENCE globally is exceptionally interesting.

The 'seat' of current Free World culture began there. 

This is from The Internatinoal Herald Tribune.  I read that paper daily for years and I still have my notes.  They used to 'feature' a country and/or a peoples and/or a culture daily on what used to be Page 2 or 3. 

At any rate, today President Sarkozy casts a light on the struggles in Tunisia and why France has to stand down from the dynamics that might be viewed as 'a liberation.'

...“France did not take the full measure (click title to entry - thank you) of the despair of the Tunisian people,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “We in France probably underestimated the aspirations of the Tunisian people for freedom.” He argued that France had to act “with a certain reserve” regarding its former colonies....

The Paul Dialogue on the Federal Budget is bad for the country. The USA is NOT Europe.

There is no way one can compare the USA with the EU and expect to solve budget and tax debates.  It is unrealistic.  The countries in Europe, the populous and demographics and culture are completely different than the USA and to compare any venacular of the two is hideous and dysfunctional.  That is just the beginning. 

The "Pauls" want to cut corporate income tax and that is EXACTLY the same dynamic as the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy; there is NO result in jobs.

Why are jobs IMPORTANT?  Becuase it builds the tax base.  The tax base in the USA at the 'employment' level has shrunk over the past decade and a half which means if one cuts the taxes for corporations the country will face larger deficits and not less.  The job base equals the tax base IF the corporate tax rate is reduced and the TAX BASE RESULTING FROM EMPLOYMENT is not equal in ANY WAY.

There is also a very dysfunctional occurrance in the USA when corporate rates are cut; THEY LEAVE THE COUNTRY and outsource jobs.  When the USA gives tax cuts to corporations they have too much cash and they take their jobs outside the country and completely shoot themselves in the foot by eliminating USA based markets at the same time.

The "Pauls" are full of rhetoric that SOUNDS logical and FEEDS 'the intution' of the public, but, it has no basis in reality or sound policy,

Comparing the USA to ANY other country is completely dysfunctional and hideous.  It lacks sincere love of the citizens of the USA as well.

...After speaking (click title to entry - thank you) to his fellow incoming freshmen on Capitol Hill, Paul said he “found that there was some steadfastness there to push the leadership towards more” budget cuts....

If the newly elected can't bring NEW ideas other than rhetorical political rants then what were they elected for in the first place?  They were elected by extremists that got us in trouble in the first place.