So Obama spoke tonight, and I think he said 2 things that were very important. However, I wonder how these two statements are going to reach the intended audience. Will we start to see TV commercials? Also, I haven't heard any news media talking about these two statements at all yet.

First statement that I thought was really important and wonder if it will become a T.V. commercial:

"And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country"

The second statement along the same line is :

"In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father who will attend those parent/teacher conferences, or help with homework after dinner, or turn off the TV, put away the video games, and read to their child. I speak to you not just as a President, but as a father when I say that responsibility for our children's education must begin at home."

I'm really curious how Obama intends to get these messages to the people who need to hear them. (as apposed to just the people who already champion such ideas)

Full text and video for those who are curious:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/o...e_n_169671.html

Just to clarify. I'm not really saying if I agree with what he said or not. What I meant by very important, is that they are things which he said which couldn't have just been said in some closed session of Congress and leaked out to the media. (Wouldn't have the same affect etc.)

But I'm really curious how he plans to get that message out, and if they don't plan on doing anything after this speach, why did he spend so much text on it?

The skyrocketing cost of healthcare he mentioned is a much bigger concern to me than kids who decide to drop out of school. Kids dropping out of school is a lack of control and improper upbringing on the parents' part.

That's part of my point. There isn't anything that Obama can actually do to get people to read to their kids, or not have them drop out of school. So I'm wondering what they plan on doing with these things. (mass advertising? YouTube campaigns?)

However, I decided to go to http://www.recovery.gov/ and I'm REALLY dissapointed with it.

What type of wool are they trying to pull over our eyes with jobs created/saved nonsense? Why not give us the actual breakdown of saved vs created jobs? Where is the information that actually tells us what the 8billion "other" dollars are going to.

I think I prefer it when the government tells us they are going to keep us in the dark, instead of saying they will keep dialogue open without actually giving us the means to easily hear the conversation.


edit: Where did all the sheep who had "vote for obama" sigs go?

I'll give him a little longer than a month before deciding how good of a job he's done.

I did notice the woman behind him in that speech was spring loaded!

Is there anyone in the world who has not, within a week of Obama's inauguration, decided that life is not yet perfect and therefore he's a horrible president?

FFS people, the guy's been in office a month, and his election did not, contrary to popular belief, give him the ability to wave a magic wand and instantly fix everything. He still has to contend with congress and with the idiots in the banking system who express wide-eyed disbelief at the fact that they might not deserve that $1 million dollar bonus while their business is crumbling around them.

Or the awesome guy who whined that $500,000 isn't enough to live on. I love him; his idiocy is ****ing hilarious.

Edit edit: See also:

I'm not sure I follow.

Oh, and in regards to the website, I finally found this, heh my bad.

Q: I heard I'd be able to track recovery funds. Why can't I do that?
A: You aren't able to track funds yet because we have not yet started receiving information from Federal agencies on how they are going to allocate the money. It takes a little bit of time for them to make sure your money is going to be spent wisely. Right now, the site features an overview of the law and an explanation of what it is intended to accomplish. You will have access to data as soon as we begin receiving it from agencies.

What does this have to do with dropping out of highschool?

also, does has anybody heard anything as to what :
"And to encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Sen. Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country -– Sen. Edward Kennedy. " is supposed to mean? It's another odd thing that he threw into his speech and I'm really curious why he said it.

I was responding to your follow-up post, in which you accused the government of pulling the wool over the eyes of US citizens because recovery.gov doesn't have a complete statistical breakdown yet.

Its really hard to say. While I will admit he is a great orator, I wonder how he will actually accomplish what he says. It really reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Lois ran for mayor and all she did was say 9 11 and the crowds cheered and she won. Actions speak louder than words, I will wait to see what his actions actually are.

If you go to the website, you might see that the language they use is not really there to help people make independent informed opinions.

Well, the site's brand new and like the FAQ quote you posted, they haven't even started getting the info from various govt agencies to share yet. The site read more like an intro and a declaration of intention to me and I imagine that, once the data starts flowing in, there will be more specific info available.

And I bet there will be commercials and campaigns pushing the 'stay in school' and 'parents are responsible for their kids' educations' messages. I'm confused if you're trying to say this'll be a bad thing or something.

edit: Oh, and I had one of those 'vote for Obama' sigs. But the election's over, so I took it down. Now, that space is dedicated toward my demand for Guitars for Bards and Stationary for Bookbinders.

Noolz!

BALI!!

The fact that the news is constantly saying that this bill is creating 3.5 million jobs, when in fact it isn't just really bugs me. The fact that this website says the exact same thing bugs me even more. You have to rollover each state to see that its 3.5 million jobs saved/created, which is a HUGE distinction, since over 3.5 million jobs have already been -actually- lost.) It makes people think they will be getting their jobs back (if they switch industries) when that isn't what is being done at all. I don't know the break down, but if they said "because of this bill 2.5 million of you will get to keep your job, and we will create 1 million new jobs" it has a very different impression than "because of this bill we will create 3.5 million jobs"




I'm just curious how they plan on doing this. If it's anything like the "say no to drugs" campaign, or the "the more you know" campaign, it's going to be a big failure. Would a facebook campaign work? a youtube one? A national "read a book to your child" day? Am I to expect more AdCouncil ads while watching Hulu?

I have this funny feeling that the biggest changes in the next year are so, are going to be from these things Obama hinted at but didn't give much info on, instead of the grandiose plans that sound very similar to Clinton's first State of the Union address ( which this wasn't). Not sure if anyone remembers Bill Clinton announcing that everyone will have health care back in the early 1990s. I suggest reading the following speach and comparing it to Obamas

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton...e_Union_Address

here he said:

"The conditions which brought us as a nation to this point are well-known: two decades of low productivity, growth, and stagnant wages; persistent unemployment and underemployment; years of huge Government deficits and declining investment in our future; exploding health care costs and lack of coverage for millions of Americans; legions of poor children; education and job training opportunities inadequate to the demands of this tough, global economy. For too long we have drifted without a strong sense of purpose or responsibility or community."

And then in his 8th state of the union address he said the following:

"To 21st century America, let us pledge these things: Every child will begin school ready to learn and graduate ready to succeed. Every family will be able to succeed at home and at work, and no child will be raised in poverty. We will meet the challenge of the aging of America. We will assure quality, affordable health care, at last, for all Americans."

my point is just that these things get said all the time, but its always the small things which are hinted at which actually happen.

I don't think it's fair to hold the American media's oversimplifications against the president.

It's his website not the media:

Finish reading what I wrote?

The media is bad enough with it's simple language of 3.5 million jobs, I thought it would be more clear on Obama's website, but it isn't. It's just more unclear.

Actually, I suggest people do not read the state of the union addresses from Clinton or later, it's a bit depressing seeing the same thing said by each president each year, and seeing things just getting worse instead of better. (actually I think these things were said even before Carter, but I wasn't alive then to remember)

Have you tried the formal congressional websites to get a copy of the text of the bill? It's not like it isn't available... I found the full explanation of what all's involved in the bill in about ten seconds of googling. Just because it's not outlined in detail on the president's website (because, let's be honest, it's complicated and his website is mostly intended for propaganda), doesn't mean that they're hiding it.

ETA: it's especially disingenuous to complain that the full information isn't on the president's website when you consider that technically, arguing over the pesky details of a plan and hammering out the final form of the bill/plan is not only not the president's job, it's not something he's even allowed to be involved in except as a courtesy. He can ask for support for it, but even he doesn't know what final form it'll end up in, after all of the compromises and changes... The (arguably illegal) old line-veto (Clinton) and "I'm signing this with the comment that the stuff I don't like isn't really law" (Bush) stuff notwithstanding.