SOTU Address & Your Interview With The President

companies don't just go hiring foreign born employees to work in the us just because they can. they have to sponsor someone, it costs money, and they aren't quite sure that they have the same standards.

If the woman's husband is having trouble finding a job he probably needs to get more qualified so he can actually compete.

the reason he danced around the issue is 1) he didn't know the details beyond a vague question that was asked and 2) it would seem insulting if he said "your husband probably isn't qualified"

You're probably right.

I just hate watching politicians dance around questions instead of answering them. It makes me want to punch kittens.

I agree with Caitsith.Mahayaya, they are all asking, "Mr. Goverment, what can you do for me?"

In my opinion that is our biggest problem in the U.S. today. Everyone is looking to the Fed to take care of them instead of getting out there and doing something for themselves. I might lose my job in the near future, but won't go crying to Washington to get me another. If I have to flip burgers or push carts at Wal-Mart to feed my family, that's what I'll do, while looking for something better, rather than sitting around the house for 99 weeks on unemployment.

Bolded is part of why they don't hire "overqualified" people.

I don't get why anyone is surprised that they all tried to plug themselves... Everyone thinks about what's best for "me and mine" though I admit I was surprised by how shameless some of them were lol. Don't fool yourselves though.. people aren't thinking about your well being or the countries but the well being of themselves and if that coincides with something else then so be it.

Ugh, did some reflecting over the interview, then decided to re-watch it. Really, the overall tone of the interview was "Me, me, me". "What can YOU, Obama, do for ME?"

The first video had a person who said that he was working a 40hr week and going to school, and what Obama had planned to help him or people like him.

The woman from Texas couldn't help talking about her husband and children. "Why doesn't MY husband have a job, he's an engineer!" She was pleased that Obama's people would check out the guy's resume - not answering the greater problem, the lack of jobs.

The guy from Michigan states that he was glad that Obama helped bail out the auto-industry because it helped his father stay employed. "It helped ME out, so I approve!" Rather than thinking the damage done as a whole to the larger group of taxpayers(and future debt of our children). Even if GM had been shutdown, the demand would have been distributed among other car manufacturers, such as Ford. This slightly increased demand would require more workers to fulfill it. This would weed out the companies that can't keep a proper business model, and help the stronger businesses grow.

The small business advocate, from New Jersey, couldn't help but ask Obama, "If you need a small business guy, don't hesitate to call me!"

It was especially disturbing to hear the woman at the end say, "I have a book! *nervous laugh*" It just goes to show that these people have little concern for the betterment of the future, just of themselves and THEIR kids.

It's typical for a gay person to argue for gay rights, but it's truly a noble cause for one to not argue the case for "gay rights", but for universal human rights.

The questions asked today(barring the UK extradition question) weren't for great causes, most of them had a selfish interest - help ME. It left me with distaste and was reminiscent of a nest of baby birds chirping for their worm.

If the majority of people are like this, it's unquestionable that the majority of elected officials relentlessly serve their own needs as well, despite the costs to others.

/nohopeinhumanity

There are a lot of big issues. We get FIVE questions. IMO, if 3/5 of those are marijuana related, it's stupid. It's not THAT huge of an issue to overrule some of the better questions that were mentioned before. I will consider it a failure.

"Mr. Goverment, what can you do for me?"

I couldn't even make out what she said when she explained what kind of engineer he was. Did anyone catch that?

But ... that's kind of the point of the government. The whole reason they exist is to help ME, the person that elected them (me in the sense of the US population, not necessarily me specifically). The point of the government is explicitly not to just help those already in government make more money.


Same as me, electrical/computer engineering. I'd put good money on him being a silicon valley kind of guy. And we often lose our jobs to the H-1Bs, not for missing skill sets, but for not wanting to move or make other big sacrifices. Losing a job to another US citizen because of those reasons is one thing - losing to a non citizen is quite another.

I'm also glad marijuana didn't make it to the list, it's just not important enough in comparison to the other things to ask. Unfortunately, the other things that did get asked barely got answered anyway, so it was kind of blah to begin with. But expecting to get straight answers to surprise questions in that format is probably just asking too much from a politician.

Edit: On the marijuana - a piece of the problem is that there are so, so many people that want it legal for very non-medical reasons. Some people would benefit greatly - most just want to get high. If you can show me a way to make it responsible in the various parts of the country that have it now, then we can talk about doing something more legally.

I'm also glad marijuana didn't make it to the list, it's just not important enough in comparison to the other things to ask. Unfortunately, the other things that did get asked barely got answered anyway, so it was kind of blah to begin with. But expecting to get straight answers to surprise questions in that format is probably just asking too much from a politician.

Edit: On the marijuana - a piece of the problem is that there are so, so many people that want it legal for very non-medical reasons. Some people would benefit greatly - most just want to get high. If you can show me a way to make it responsible in the various parts of the country that have it now, then we can talk about doing something more legally.

b1: why does that matter?

b2: again why does that matter?

It seems like when a marijuana question gets brought to attention it's met with a chuckle because they assume the proponents just want to get high. It's prohibition has consequences that include empowering drug cartels from central to south america that results in wasted money, senseless deaths, and gov. corruption.

far less problems than keeping it illegal causes.

The argument that drugs cause people to do "bad things" is flawed.

It seems like when a marijuana question gets brought to attention it's met with a chuckle because they assume the proponents just want to get high. It's prohibition has consequences that include empowering drug cartels from central to south america that results in wasted money, senseless deaths, and gov. corruption.

No doubt - so the real question becomes not if it's better to have it legal, but which is the lesser evil: Having it legal, and dealing with an increase in people being high, or keeping it illegal, and dealing with those prohibition issues?

Prohibition is probably the best comparison there, an item that has somewhat similar effects. I think the general consensus is that allowing alcohol to be legal, but heavily regulated and taxed, works better than banning it all. I'm generally in that camp about marijuana as well, for the same reasons.

I just don't want to be smelling pot smoke when I walk down a street, cigs are bad enough as it is. I live in Portland, so trust me, it would get so bad here I probably wouldn't be able to go downtown anymore.

Or slightly more extreme, make a state law that prohibits such an act as public intoxication or smoking.

If we can arrange it so you can have your pot and not crash into my car or bother me, then I'm good to go.

I think it matters because people that are high can cause issues for society. I know the stereotype is that marijuana is the laid back drug, but the reality is that there's a lot of collateral damage from the use. If it were just two people smoking on their back porch, it would be fine. But that's not all of it.

anything you said right there can be applied to alcohol

While this is great to read, I wonder if this passes if the feds will raid and arrest people like they have done in the past when medical marijuana was first introduced.

It's nice to see states give the middle finger to the fed though, gotta love that.