10 things (and 4 outrages) techies need to know about President Obama's State of the Union Address

By | January 26, 2011, 5:39am PST

Summary: This was not Barack Obama’s best speech and I couldn’t help, by the end, being left with the feeling that our President and our nation could have done better — much better.

Image courtesy CBSNews.com

Last night, President Obama gave his Constitutionally-mandated yearly State of the Union address to Congress and the American people.

Most people think that a speech is required before Congress, but Article II, Section 3 merely requires the President “give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union”. Up until President Wilson’s time at the turn of the last century, the State of the Union was presented as a written report. Since then, and especially since the advent of television, the State of the Union has been a way for the President to trot out his policy directions for the year and present them, not only to Congress, but to the American people and the world.

This year was no different. President Obama’s speech was filled with hope, opportunity, self-congratulation, outrages, and more than a little hyperbole.

What follows are ten things technical professionals need to know about the President’s speech, and how his policies might affect you, your employer, and your family well into the future.

1. Overall theme: win the future

President Obama’s overall theme was “Win the future.” He used the phrase six times during his speech. Essentially, the idea is that we need to focus our attention on innovation and education, because that’s how America will stay competitive into the future.

He generated a strong spark of applause with the line: “We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.”

My take: It’s a key need, but the challenge is doing it in our society. To actually make this happen, the health care hostage crisis needs to be resolved. Our health care costs still make our products more expensive to produce than those of any other nation.

2. Innovation + Education = Jobs

President Obama gave good speech, and he focused specifically on fostering American innovation and education. He talked about better education programs and certain tax breaks for innovators.

One interesting line was, “We’re the nation of Edison and the Wright Brothers, of Google and Facebook.” Quite notably, he didn’t mention either Apple or Microsoft. This may tie in with another line of his speech, “In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives, it’s how we make our living.”

My take: If you think about it, this is the biggest outrage of the speech, because America used to make our living by manufacturing. I liked how this sounds, but on further consideration, it feels like we’re conceding manufacturing prowess to other nations. Since manufacturing fuels jobs, that’s a serious problem.

He may not have mentioned Apple or Microsoft because both offshore manufacturing and Google and Facebook make their living solely by “innovation” (actually, advertising), but neither does manufacturing of any kind.

3. Clean energy

Another key line line in the speech was, “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.” What the President was referring to was how the Soviets got into space first. Once Sputnik was launched, the U.S. decided we couldn’t give the lead in space to the Soviets, so we invested hard into space innovation and won the moon race.

The connection in President Obama’s message is his premise that “clean energy” is the Apollo project of our time and the budget Obama is submitting to Congress will allocate funding for clean energy research.

My take: If the budget passes, brush off those resumes and learn more about energy. This is a SmartPlanet moment, so go visit our sister site and do some reading up! Sadly, there was no Kennedy moment, nothing of the stirring, call-to-action power of “Before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth.”

Next: Big oil, health care, and immigration »

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

200
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Number 5 - Healthcare
ben.rattigan 24th Jan
Why can't Americans just get it. Universal health care, free at the point of use is the only fair way. Health in the UK is as good as the US, it is cheaper and everyone has access to it. NICE ensures that huge pharmaceutical firms don't rip off the UK taxpayer with expensive drugs that have little impact. Pre-existing condition isn't an issue. If you are ill you see a doctor, it is free, you go to hospital it is free, no worries.
0 Votes
+ -
We don't need another "inspirational" speech
Michael Kelly 26th Jan 2011
We needed one that gets both sides to work together and get work done. That's what he aimed for, and while I wouldn't call it perfect, I think it achieved the goal. I like how he said he was willing to cut spending on his pet projects to keep spending down, but let's hope he means it and the Democrats in Congress get that message.

Personally I think it's simple. If we aren't spending money on education, public infrastructure, cutting edge scientific research (that private companies cannot take on, with the express intent of turning that into future privatized jobs), or national defense/diplomacy, we shouldn't be spending.
mess we are currently in, not work together with it.
0 Votes
+ -
What ideology would that be
AllKnowingAllSeeing 26th Jan 2011
as opposed to what Michael Kelly is proposing?
0 Votes
+ -
Easy rule
John L. Ries Updated - 26th Jan 2011
@frgough
If a proposal is better than the status quo, then support it. If it's not, then oppose it. You might still want to fight false ideologies (hopefully, you have a true one to replace them), but on the whole, it's easier and more effective to support good policies, regardless of the source, and to oppose bad ones, regardless of the source, than it is to fight an ideological war.

I think that over the past 50 years or so, we've accumulated lots of evidence that suggests that a policy of "permanent revolution" doesn't work any better for Conservatives than it did for Leon Trotsky.
@frgough - I agree, we need to get government out of the "ideas" business, and back to focusing on defense of the citizenry and interacting with other countries in a manner that shows national pride. We have nothing left to apologize for.

There was recently a document released by members of the GOP that outlines $1.2 Trillion in government cuts over the next 10 years. It is extremely specific, as to what would be cut and how much it would save. I didn't see anything on the list I could disagree with. They need to chop down government like the rotten tree it is.
@frgough "We need to defeat the ideology responsible for the
mess we are currently in, not work together with it."

So you agree with me that we need to stop making reckless unfunded tax cuts that are bankrupting this nation, which stem from the cult-like ideological worship of the "Laffer Curve". Just like the post WWII era, we're currently sitting on a mountain of debt, and we should reimpose the tax rates we had during the Eisenhower administration until we've paid down the national debt.
@frgough

"No. We need to defeat the ideology responsible for the mess we are currently in, not work together with it. "

And both sides will say the other side is the ideology responsible for the mess.

All that gets us is a stalemate. It brings no progress at all.

What you are asking for is a guaranteed continuation of the stalemate.
@Speednet

I guess you didn't see Cavuto shoot down the 1.2 trillion number on Fox? They want to sell Fannie and Freddie who are the only banks backing mortgages right now. That would be economic disaster. That "study group" doesn't understand the consequences of what they propose.
@frgough Agreed. That would mean defeating Progressivism in all its ugly forms that treats businesses as vassals to be raped with high tax rates and micromanaged with idiotic regulations that are counterproductive.
@0xBADF00D

The Laffer Curve so called is simply a graph of an obvious truth. It purports to show total government revenue as a function of total tax rates. At the top and bottom of the (usually D shaped) curve, are 0 and 100%. Along the bottom, is a generalized income scale. Government income is 0 at a 0% tax rate. That should be obvious. What is not obvious to some, but is to anyone who thinks about it, the Government income is also 0 at 100%. This means that if the government spends all of the value that the country can produce, there is nothing left, and therefor no production.

There is no serious disagreement with these two points. For the rest of the curve, Government income grows as you get closer to some median tax rate, finally reaching a maximum, after which it decreases. This should be also obvious.

What is not obvious, and which is frequently ignored both by proponents and belittlers (of which you appear to be one based on your statement above) is that we don't know where on the curve the point of maximum government funding is reached, or what level of total taxation gives that value. Experimentally, looking at government over the last 100 years, it seems to be around 50%.

That 50% figure should not be interpreted as referring to Federal Income Tax Rates. It refers to total taxes on total income from all sources. It includes local and State taxes as well as Federal taxes, and all other tax sources, including FICA. Taking out the others, that means that Government income can be expected to peak at a maximum tax rate of around 30%, with a state and local tax rate of around 9%. Anything higher will tend to reduce the economy. Anything lower will tend to reduce the Government.

I should note here that duties and other Government taxes and fees amount to around 10% of the total economy and are not paid by individuals directly. Prior to 1900, these other taxes totally supported the Federal Government, except for a brief period during the Civil War.

Professor Laffer's curve is not wrong, it is just not understood. It is also not a Nobel Prize winning chart, just a way to show some common sense principles.

If you were to try to put real scales on the chart, then you would need some serious research and mathematics to back it up. I am not aware of any generally accepted work that would give a precise shape to the curve, or give a real maximum income point. Hence, the limited accuracy of the curve.
0 Votes
+ -
Both sides?
cosuna 27th Jan 2011
@Michael Kelly : at any rate the U.S. is currently in multi polar environment. It used to be that liberals who lived on any of the coast were prominently Dems and the great vast space that lied in between (once sarcastically called by Bart Simpson "America") were primarily GOP. [Albeit most mayor cities were also Dems as were minority based]

Today we see radical groups coming from all sorts of places. The Tea Party is one of them, but Minutemen and Nativists might be others. Most are far right (as witnessed by the Arizona shootings) but we cannot count out far left.

So the problem's not as simple as it sounds.
0 Votes
+ -
Very wrong there...
adornoe@... Updated - 27th Jan 2011
You need some major lessons in civics.

The "Tea Party" is the people, and the people rose up and took matters into their own hands when they removed the democrats from control of the house of representatives.

If you think that the Tea Party is radical, then you're accusing the people of the U.S. of being radical. But, perhaps to you, the people being in control is a radical idea.

Why don't you take some time to find out what is really driving the Tea Party and who are the "members" of that Tea Party. You might find out that, the majority of Americans support what the tea party stands for.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Bullsh!t
search & destroy 27th Jan 2011
The teabaggers are old white farts (like patronizing adornoe@... a$$hole) fronting for neocon multinational corporations and a return to the 1950s.

They don't represent all of "the people". Otherwise they'd have 100% in the approval ratings.
  • Flagged
They are not a witch. LOL.
come on dude...the "people". No, some small amount of the people. And "some" of the people vote the exact opposite you do....does that make them wrong? How can the "people" be wrong?
0 Votes
+ -
Tea Party
RRJP 28th Jan 2011
@adornoe

The majority of the people in the US are not in the Tea Party last time I checked.

The reality of the Tea Party is that the people at the top providing the ideas and fueling the fear and anger (eg. Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, David and Charles Koch, etc.) are purposely manipulating people into supporting ideas which are based on lies (though they sound reasonable to the layman) and not in the self interest of the vast majority of the American people. What is, "really driving the Tea Party", are super rich folks who want to push the middle class into poverty and turn the US into a third world country where they will be the oligarchy. The street level Tea Party member does not understand that they are being duped. Sad but true.
@cosuna Please explain the far right connection with an individual who murders without discrimination. Is the defense of this murderer going to be is a member of some political movement? Perhaps if as a nation we assumed responsibility for our actions, this gentleman would have known he was wrong. We have become accustomed to finding the fall guy for someone elses actions. Doesn't wash.
0 Votes
+ -
come on dude...the "people".

Yes, the people!

Didn't you notice the shellacking that "the people" handed to the democrats by removing them and providing the republicans with a huge majority?

The fact is that, even if people are not polled as to whether they support the "tea party", the majority of those people did vote as the "tea party" in the elections. Without the "tea party", the democrats would still control the house of representatives and they would've held on to the seats they lost in the senate.

No, some small amount of the people.

If you would take your head out of the sand, you'd realize that, what the tea party stands for is what most Americans believe in, thus, the tea party represents America.

And "some" of the people vote the exact opposite you do....

People tend to vote ideologically and oftentimes, along party lines.

But, the "tea party" transcended traditional party lines and this time around, it was the people, with the "tea party" ideas leading the way.

does that make them wrong?

That's actually a dumb question.

Yes, people do and have often voted wrong. Did you actually need for someone to tell you what should be obvious? Didn't Obama get voted in with a healthy majority, and didn't many of those people then regret their votes later? The fact is that, not even a year into his presidency, the majority of the people were against most of what Obama and the democrats were trying to pass into law, like Obamacare.

How can the "people" be wrong?

Again, a very dumb question.

The people, even when they vote as a majority, can be very wrong. That's why Obama has much less than 50% support for his agenda, and the majority of the people indicate that they wouldn't vote for him again.

But, like I said, though the "tea party" is not an official organized party, the ideas espoused by it are what the majority of the people are in support of, and that's why, those congresspeople who supported what the tea party stands for, are now on control of congress.

Should I have to explain it further for you?
0 Votes
+ -
RRJP: Try to use your head a little bit...
adornoe@... Updated - 28th Jan 2011
The majority of the people in the US are not in the Tea Party last time I checked.

That's because, you're doing the wrong kind of checking.

The "tea party" is not an official organized political organization. It is mostly a "state of mind" in the electorate, also known as the citizens.

The "tea party" is the unorganized decision by the people to take back the country from those that were destroying it. The "members" transcended party lines, and, they composed the majority of those that removed the democrats from control of the house and passed it on to the republicans.

The reality

That reality you speak of is the official talking points which the democrats used so often to try to demonize the opposition, and the tea party was the latest "evil" which the democrats saw as a threat to their power. You bought hook-line-and-sinker into the democrats' official attacks on the people.

of the Tea Party is that the people at the top providing the ideas and fueling the fear and anger (eg. Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, David and Charles Koch, etc.)

Yeah, more of that democratic talking points. You sound exactly like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelousy, and Obama.

Look, I don't belong to the tea party, although I'm a "tea party" advocate. Those "leaders" you speak of are and were supporters of the tea party movement, and, the tea party movement consisted of the people who got sick and tired of the government not doing the will of the people, like passing a healthcare bill which the great majority of people were and are against.

Polls still indicate that the people, including the large number who identify themselves as "tea partiers", are still against Obamacare and against the huge and out-of-control spending that has the country, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt.

are purposely manipulating people into supporting ideas which are based on lies (though they sound reasonable to the layman)

So, exactly what was it that the tea party supporters advocated, that was wrong or biased?

You are the one with the wrongheaded ideas and with the lies. What part of logic is it that you can't understand?

Was it that the tea party people were wrong to try to control spending and even pull it back? Was it that Obamacare is wrongheaded and hands over to government control 1/6th of the economy to government control? Was it that we need to bring the illegal alien problem under control? Was it that the government spending has us basically in ruins?

Look, the tea party is not a political party; it's a grass-roots movement which transcends traditional party lines, and there are people who support the agenda of the "tea party" because it was the only one with the message that the other two parties were refusing to hear or understand. That refusal is similar to what you're doing with your anti tea party rhetoric and attacks. If you weer to wake up and examine the issues closely, you might find yourself becoming a "tea party member" yourself.

and not in the self interest of the vast majority of the American people.

The tea party is in fact very representative of the vast majority of the American people. It was the tea party that organized the biggest grass-roots message that replace the democrats in congress. And, it didn't matter what political "celebrities" supported the movement. In fact, the movement started way before Beck or Palin or Armey or any other big name was involved. Check your history and your facts.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
RRJP: Try to use your head a little bit... (continued)
adornoe@... Updated - 28th Jan 2011
What is, "really driving the Tea Party", are super rich folks

I'm one of the middle-class and I know a lot of other middle-class who support what the "tea party" movement is about. And, I also know a lot of poor people who support the movement. I would believe those people to be much better informed than you.

What you're doing is throwing allegations about the "rich" who support the tea party. So, exactly how many of those rich people can you name, except for the names you already mentioned who are political activists? If you bothered to do your own research, you'd discover that the vast majority of the people supporting the tea party movement are not rich or well-off, and you might discover that most of them are middle-class and poor. You might discover that there are just a relative few who are well-off and rich.

BTW, did you now that the democratic party has more millionaires, aka: rich and super-rich, in its ranks than the republicans or the "tea party movement"? So, exactly who is it then that is trying to keep the good folks down? You, like most liberals, have things completely upside down, or you're just completely clueless about the real world out there.

who want to push the middle class into poverty

Garbage!

The real fact is that, more poverty is created when the democrats are in control than when republicans are in office. The democrats can talk a good game about being for the poor and the downtrodden, but they are also the party that needs for the poor and downtrodden to remain poor and out of luck in order for the party to remain or attain power. Poverty is an official agenda for the democrats. Without the poor and the unfortunates in life, the democratic party would cease to exist, and that's why they're known as the poverty pimps.

and turn the US into a third world country where they will be the oligarchy.

You're so full of it!

Look, I used to be a democrat, and one of the most rabid liberals anyone could meet. I use to feel the same way as you did, but, upon close examination of the issues and where the parties stood on the issues, and after close examination of the results from the different party agendas. I came to the conclusion that I could no longer support the liberalism which I was so in love with for so long. You, apparently, have a long way to go in your knowledge and in your understanding.

The street level Tea Party member does not understand that they are being duped. Sad but true.

That is exactly what the tea party members say about the typical dumb and ignorant democratic party member.

The fact is that, the tea party was willing to un-elect a democrat as well as a republican from office. That's one of the reasons that John McCain didn't become president. The republicans didn't want to vote for Obama, but a huge number of them could not and would not vote for McCain either; and thus, with many republicans staying home, Obama won. Now, the electorate is basically composed of the same people who voted for Obama in 2008, and that electorate reversed course in 2010. So, when was the electorate correct in its decision: 2008 or 2010? Remember that, in order to remove so many democrats from office, many of them had to have voted for Obama in 2008. So, a great many of those voters came from the 2008 election when Obama won, but a great deal of them voted republican in 2010. So, when where those same people ignorant? 2008 or 2010. So, logically speaking, you have to be wrong in your points about the "tea party", because the "tea party" is the American people.

And, guess what? That same tea party is going to get more powerful as time passes, even if it's not an official political organization.

Meanwhile, wake up and get you head out of the sand. Being in denial is not a winning strategy.
  • Flagged
@adornoe
Again, amazes me how people who want a quick fix answer to the problems that beset politics love to find their quick fix by finding someone to blame for the woes of the world. This in a simplified nutshell is what the tea party is all about, finding and assessing blame on others who do not fit the tea party model of what an American in their eyes should be.

And like it or not, by far in a way, the vast majority of Americans are not like those found on the roles of the tea party and do not follow most, and in some cases, any of their hardest held political and social ideas.

The tea party is simply a group that represents some of the worst that can happen in partisan politics. Its not like it hasn't happened before in many places around the world. The plan of attack is an old one. The steps have been taken before:

1. Identify political and social problems that people in positions of strength really hate.

2. Concoct theoretical solutions to those problems that have the identification of certain kinds of people who are creating the problem, that way there is always a target to keep party members focused on.

3. Verbalize the solutions in such a way to make it sound like the solutions to these political/social problems will have positive and noticeable benefits even for those who are not in positions of strength so long as they can find a way to identify themselves with the group. Its the wishful thinking element of coercive politics.

4. Once you have the backing of a sufficient number of the "great unwashed" who dream they are part of the lofty group of those with strong positions in society, use their naivety to back the plans of the strong to make it appear to be a populist movement. Those who love to dream of being part of the lofty will jump on board usually without a second thought once the "its us against them" mentality has been drilled into their head.

4. Keep your eye on the target. And the target is always going to be the groups who clearly cannot be part of the "lofty strong" either because they have publicly stated opposed political and social views or because their position in society clearly makes it impossible for them to be in any way connected to the kinds of thinking the lofty strong advocate, or its clear there would only be a harsh outcome for them if the policies of the lofty and strong come to be. If you take your eye off the target peoples interest will wane quickly if the group thats supposed to be causing all the problems is not clearly identifiable, it leads to confusion and the possibility that the great unwashed will start to realize that most of them are going to get kicked in the privates just as hard as anyone who is not genuinely part of the lofty and strong if their policies come to be.

Its a grand old political tactic that has been used over and over again around the world throughout history, sometimes to absolutely amazing and disastrous effect.

And it works because there are always just enough vain nobody's who want so badly to have someone to blame for the worlds woes that is clearly not like themselves. Even when reality dictates that more then one kind of person creates the political and social problems of a country.
@RRJP

Wow. I'm glad to see someone else besides just me has noticed that!!! The Tea Party has no agenda but the total destruction of the middle class. It leaves me standing with my jaw agape when I see middle class people pushing their agenda!


@adornoe@... You really need to learn a bit more about what you speak of. In reality it is VERY far from the truth! And even if it were true, the "average" American doesn't have a clue about what's really going on in Washington, so just how do they plan on "fixing" that mess? It's like sending a ten year old to tear down the engine in a car and rebuild it who's never done more than ride to school in a car. It just ain't gonna happen! He may tear it down...But I shudder to think what you'll get when you start the rebuild process. It's easy to destroy. Creation/repair/fixing...not quite so smooth a process with knowledge and experience.
I agree that any subsidies to oil companies need to stop, but at the same time we need to lift restrictions on exploration and drilling. There's a lot of oil stiff left, thank God, that will sustain us until other energy sources are finally competitive (without subsidies).

Same goes for health care. Let's get out of the way and let insurance companies offer different types of insurance to meet different kinds of needs, and allow them to compete across state lines. Offering help to the 10 million or so Americans who can't afford insurance and WANT it would be good, too. As for pre-existing conditions, a one-time window to mandate insurance companies enroll those Americans with pre-existing conditions (with a tax-funded subsidy per case) would be good, but after that no more. It's a choice, not a right.
far too successful indoctrination of the concept that keeping more of the money you earn is a subsidy. Oil companies don't receive any subsidies.
@frgough

Agree profit =/= subsidy. In fact, I wasn't sure that oil companies received subsidies (hence "any"), but Obama said it: "I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies."
@frgough:
keeping more of your money "than other people get to keep" *is* a subsidy. Paying the prevailing tax rate is the base line. If you pay less than that, yes you are getting a subsidy. Just like the mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy encouraging home ownership. Why? because home ownership drives construction and job producing other industries.
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong
Michael Alan Goff Updated - 26th Jan 2011
"keeping more of your money "than other people get to keep" *is* a subsidy."

It's called a... say it with me "Tax Rebate".

Edit: Or in other words, you keeping your money is not the same as somebody giving you money.
@frgough If the oil companies are getting access to Federal lands for free (where other companies would need to pay for the access) then that's a subsidy.

If oil refineries are not required to pay for same clean up costs that other industries are required to pay, then that is a subsidy.

@goff256 A "Tax Rebate" is something that is offered to people/companies across the board regardless of specific conditions (more or less). A "tax rebate" that is offered to one particular industry is a subsidy. So is mortgage rate deductions.

As subsidy is not 'bad' in itself. It is only 'bad' if activity that it is supposed to encourage is not needed or wanted.
0 Votes
+ -
Huh?
Michael Alan Goff 26th Jan 2011
I still don't see how letting people keep -their- money is a subsidy.
0 Votes
+ -
It's not their money - it's your money
snberk341 Updated - 26th Jan 2011
@goff256 said:
"I still don't see how letting people keep -their- money is a subsidy."

If the companies would have, in other circumstances, paid the Federal Government for the right to drill on Federal Land - then they are keeping money that would have supported services provided by the Federal Government. Since that money didn't go to the Feds, you the taxpayer are funding those services.

OR, The owner of the store can choose to give a good customer a "freebie". It's their choice. Except in this case you are owner of the store, and your employees are giving away the freebies. If you authorized them because it's good for business, then no problems. If you didn't authorize them, and the employees are giving away freebies to their friends - but not to other customers where it might actually be good for business - then it's a subsidy.

ps I don't really care. Youse guys are buying up all of the oil we can dig out of the ground. If you stop the subsidies, or oil is more expensive and we get more Yankee $$. And if you keep shovelling $$ at the oil companies your currency weakens, and we get to buy up more of your industries with our strengthening Canadian Dollar. The big winners right now are our banks. They're snapping up regional chains as fast as you can say Bank Bail Outs. Did you know that not a single Canadian bank has failed since the great Depression of '29?
@goff256
"I still don't see how letting people keep -their- money is a subsidy."

That doesn't make it any less true.
Their definition of subsidy for the oil industry equates to basically government using "government money" for that industry.

But, a subsidy is not "government money" and it's the "people's money". And, the people's money comes from taxpaying citizens, not from citizens that pay no taxes at all. So, the government money is from taxpayers, not from freeloaders. And, the taxpayers are, for the most part, the rich and the well-off, and about 50% of the population pay no taxes at all, and many of those freeloaders actually get "negative taxes", meaning that, instead of paying taxes, they get money back from other taxpayers; that's income redistribution and welfare.

Now, going back to what constitutes a subsidy. Anytime government distributes tax money to fund anything that's government controlled or that's controlled by private industry, it could either be called a subsidy or an expense for "infrastructure building". What government is doing with tax money to the oil industry is helping to build the energy sector infrastructure, in the same sense that government might be trying to do the same when subsidies are used for the so-called "clean energy" industry. In all cases, that spending could be called "investments in the future of the country", which is exactly the term the democrats are proud of using when they want to justify any new spending. What democrats don't want to admit or mention is that, with the oil industry, there is a more immediate return on that investment than from "clean energy investments".

Now, when it comes to government doling out money, anything that government does through use of tax money, could be called subsidies. That includes paying for Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and Welfare and road service and airports and transportation and education; you name it, if government is involved in supporting it, it is being subsidized by taxpayers (aka: tax revenue).

Now, if people were to be directly involved in the decision-making about how to spend the money, chances are that, there would be no subsidies to anything other than the most important functions of government, like national defense and judicial/justice/police systems. People don't like to part with "their own money". A "true" democracy would have people voting on everything, which would be very detrimental to any country.

My feelings about subsidies to private industry is that, it shouldn't happen, and it shouldn't happen with government backed industries. Let free enterprise decide, with the help of the customer base, who the winners and losers are. It's because of government intervention into the private sector that subsidies are often needed in order to get some industries/businesses competitive again. But, if we could get government out of the picking of winners and losers, subsidies wouldn't be needed, and we probably would not have the huge conglomerates that the democrats like to demonize so much. Some conglomerates come into existence when they need to merge in order to try to continue to make a decent buck from the services and products they provide.

What I have seen from the posts that you're arguing against is that, there is so much ignorance about why things are they way they are. Too many people are incapable of analyzing causes and effects. To many, it's a lot easier to repeat talking points from political parties; things become much easier when they don't have to do their own thinking and analysis. That's where the democrats are so successful. Democrat leaders feel that the people are incapable of doing their own thinking and are even less capable of making their own decisions; thus, the democrat party agenda is built around a dependent population.

When people fail to understand the issues, and they become dependent upon government to do things for them, then they also cannot discuss the issues with any kind of analysis or logic in their arguments. That's what's happening with this "subsidy" back-and-forth.

Now, whether it's called subsidy or tax-refund or "investment", I don't mind that the money is going back to the private sector, where it should have stayed to begin with. Giving back money is not the same as a giveaway or subsidy, and it wasn't the people's money or government money. That would be equivalent to a thief who enters your home and steals a few hundred dollars from you and then "kindly" comes back to your home and says "here, you deserve to have these $50 back, but, spend it wisely".

It's hard to argue with people who lack the knowledge and the logic.
0 Votes
+ -
@rynning
Whether it's the roads, rails, airways, radios, telephones, televisions, GPS, oil, gasoline, coal, electricity, food, medicine...you name it, the infrastructure that supports it was built on subsidies. What needs to happen today is the subsidies currently supporting the oil industry need to be pulled and targeted towards clean, renewable sources of energy. Without subsidies, markets don't have the capital required to build infrastructure and they quickly fail, especially when they are competing against established markets whose infrastructure was built on the back of subsidies. This isn't hyperbole, this is the reality of the world in which we live.
@jasonp@...
I also agree that subsidies will always be needed when the shift to new technologies is inevitable. The issue is timing. There's plenty of oil in the ground (and more discovered all the time) to last us a very long time, and we've been subsidizing alternative energy development for over 30 years. While advancements have been made, what we've learned so far is that none of them can compete with crude on their own. My guess is that they won't be competitive for another 30 years.
@rynning@...
We've been subsidizing alternative energy development for over 30 years. We've been subsidizing oil and coal energy development for five times that. When you look at the speed of advancement, you can easily see that alternative energy deveopment advancements are far outpacing oil and coal energy development advancements. Since the 1970s, fuel efficiencies in gasoline engines has increased around 100%. On the other hand, solar cell efficiencies have increased over 600% in the same time period. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that subsidies to alternative energy outpaced subsidies to oil and petroleum since the 1970s, so it would seem to me that you subsidize where you're getting the best bang for your buck. The oil and petroleum energy markets are fully matured and can now fund their own advancements fully. If we were to leave alternative energy markets to their own resources, chances are they'd get buried just like Reagan tried to do to them in the 1980s. Energy production has to move beyond politics if we're to see real alternative energy development in the 30 year timeframe you lay out. In 1979, people were using the same 30 years as a frame of reference and then the price of oil dropped and we took our eye off the ball.
@rynning:
Oil and fossil fuel costs are only going up. Renewables can't compete well at current prices (but could do much better if the subsidies given fossil fuels were given to renewables), but their prices won't go up in the future.
.
The question is, do you want to pay lower costs now, and then in the future, pay BOTH really expensive fossil fuel costs on top of all the investment/infrastructure costs to switch to renewables, or do you want to pay a little more now to start switching over to renewables so we can do it orderly and gradually?
0 Votes
+ -
We do subsidize renewable energy sources
Michael Alan Goff 26th Jan 2011
And yet they're still not competing well.

What's the excuse?
@jasonp@... I don't agree with subsidies. Let the market take care of itself. If Ethanol made sense, someone would have been producing it and selling it on their own. Now, our president has banned offshore drilling and challenged us to be more competitive. Those 2 actions are at odds with each other. We already drill more responsively than any other nation which adds to the cost. Maybe, down the road, we can tax the oil companies and subsidize the so called 'renewable' energy sources (look into CFL's for the contradictions in that term). What they have done has by it's very nature, prevented the international growth they are seeking. That means they either know it and are merely paying lip service, or worse, they are inept at economics. Stick a fork in us if we don't undo most of this harmful legislation soon.
0 Votes
+ -
Ethan Subsidies are actually a good example
Michael Alan Goff Updated - 26th Jan 2011
For every gallon of ethanol, we pay roughly 1.38 in subsidies. Then there is the rise in the cost of food due to larger amount of land being used for corn. Then there's the fact that it's actually worse for the environment due to the energy used to create it....
@rynning
And once we have gone around destroying the land just for oil what do we do? We 'seriously' need to look for something to replace oil not look for more.
0 Votes
+ -
It's a pipe.
evilkillerwhale@... 27th Jan 2011
@aharvey-williams@...

Destroying the land? It's a pipe. Oil drilling is no more "destroying the land" than your sewage/septic tank.
If the hydraulic fracturing process were to always work as hoped, then I might agree that we end up with a "pipe" in the ground and not oil and 'fracing' chemicals in the water supplies which creates unsafe conditions for millions of people in their water supply.
but I really doubt they had to frac your sewage line.
So your statement in misleading and just more rhetoric w/o any basis in fact.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
xuniL_z Updated - 1st Feb 2011
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@evilkillerwhale
"Oil drilling is no more destroying the land then your sewage/septic tank."
That is a pretty ignorant thing to say considering the scale of the Deep Water Horizon catastrophe last summer. I doubt anyone living on the gulf coast will agree with you.
@rynning unfortunately, the only way insurance companies innovate is through innovative ways to separate you from your money and not provide any service. For example, high deductible policies deny policyholders coverage because they usually can't afford the deductible. 100% profit for insurance companies.

Pre-existing conditions happen all the time depending on when you set the threshold of coverage. I had a chronic condition develop between jobs so it would've been covered under the old insurance but because there was a gap, it wouldn't have been covered under the new if it hadn't been for the health care reform package.

I believe what you should be asking for is removal of everything from the employer employee relationship except cash and health and safety. Everything else, health clubs, life insurance, health insurance etc. should all be handled out of pocket by the individual. What I mean by out-of-pocket, I mean paying into a single-payer system. There are many existence proofs of them working successfully providing better quality care for less money, something insurance companies have never been able to.
0 Votes
+ -
100% profit!
Michael Alan Goff 26th Jan 2011
Of course, we're ignoring that the insurance industry has a 3% profit margin.

But, please, continue with your rant about evil insurance companies and their huge profits and the way they deny everyone and... other stuff. I'm sure it'll become true if you say it enough.
@goff256 yes they make a 3% margin, but dont think for a second that they havent denied benefits, and dont you think you should get something if you pay for it? just because you arent profitable for them, doesnt mean they can breach the "contract" they made with you. They have the right to decline any business they want, but if they accept your business you are paying your premium then they should hold up their end of the deal.
0 Votes
+ -
err?
evilkillerwhale@... 27th Jan 2011
@esjatharvee

If you signed up for a plan with a high deductible, and you aren't able to pay it so they don't give you insurance money, then they ARE holding up their end. You were just an idiot who signed up for bad health care.
0 Votes
+ -
They have the right to deny anyone service?
Michael Alan Goff 27th Jan 2011
I'm not denying that people have been denied based on things they likely shouldn't have been, but it's a minority. I would say that out of the 40 million uninsured, there are likelt 10 million because of preexisting conditions.

Now think about it. 1/30th of the population is what you're basing your argument on. Not only that, but the other people (the ones who can't afford it or don't want it) are likely going to be lumped in with it. Even with that, 80% or more of the population is happy with their insurance (and have it).

As for them being able to deny somebody, it is their right as a business. It isn't the role of anyone to tell somebody how to run their business (aside from stopping racism, sexism, and that sort of thing. Discrimination is wrong)
@goff256
think about it. 25% of those without insurance are due to pre-existing conditions. That's a lot of people.
Don't forget about the recission issue either. Health insurance is NOT the same as any other business.
@rynning

The health insurance industry has consolidated enough that the "cross state line" plan won't work. We are already out of the way. The problem here is that overhead for the docs and for you is profit for them so they get in your way and your doc's way as much as they can and grab a few bucks every time you have to deal with them.
0 Votes
+ -
Number 5 - Healthcare
ben.rattigan 24th Jan
Why can't Americans just get it. Universal health care, free at the point of use is the only fair way. Health in the UK is as good as the US, it is cheaper and everyone has access to it. NICE ensures that huge pharmaceutical firms don't rip off the UK taxpayer with expensive drugs that have little impact. Pre-existing condition isn't an issue. If you are ill you see a doctor, it is free, you go to hospital it is free, no worries.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix