.

How Would You Rate Obama's State of the Union Speech?

Do you think the president's speech swayed any undecided voters?

Our Patch live blog of the State of the Union has wrapped up, but that doesn't mean the discussion is over!

The White House has offered to answer a few questions submitted by Patch users across the nation now that the speech is done. It's a great opportunity to take your question right to Washington without leaving home.

The result will look something like this video of first lady Michelle Obama answering a fitness question.

To submit your question, post it in the comments below with your real name, the town where you live and, if you'd like, your Twitter handle.

You have until 11 a.m. Wednesday to post your question.

And if you missed the live blog, just hit the "play" button above to review the lively discussion from your fellow Patch readers.

Judy Rayford January 27, 2012 at 03:58 PM
Joe, I mean that the man in office is the answer and the man in your mind is the problem. Get real allow one plus one to equal two without it damaging your self esteem
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew January 27, 2012 at 05:20 PM
As one, who by choice stays far off the beaten path whenever possible, to Judy and Joe: You two, out of the weeds and GET off MY Lawn!
Joe Bozeman January 27, 2012 at 07:14 PM
R and Judy, I still have no idea what either one of you are trying to say.
Judy Rayford January 27, 2012 at 08:18 PM
There is one thing for sure. The people of the United States will neve be unified as long as this man is in office. stated Joe Bozeman. My reply "this man in office" is the answer. The problem with the United States is the lack of economic and educational freedom that leave people unprepared to have ideas.
Julie Camp January 27, 2012 at 08:26 PM
Judy, you just don't get it.
Joe Bozeman January 27, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Judy, You remind me of a folk song when I was in college. Peter, Paul. and Mary droned on singing " The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind". Well Obama blows a lot, but says very little of substance. Also, I would love to know what you were talking about when you implied my family " killed, cheated, and demonized people".
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew January 27, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Joe, earlier I was joshing with you as your “debate partner” seemed to really go off on a tangent. Stand fast and carry on, for in this battle, you are a better man than I. For if the man in office is the answer, the question can only come out Chicago. Talk about Jeopardy! “ I have this thing, its F’in golden…”
Joe Bozeman January 27, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Thanks R. Best Regards Joe
David B. Manley January 27, 2012 at 11:26 PM
As an aside: The top donor to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, investment banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs, received over $10 billion in emergency lending and bailouts from the Federal Reserve after the 2008 financial meltdown, according to public sources and published reports. In 1999 Romney purchased initial IPO shares in Goldman that netted him $1.1 million in profits when he sold them in 2010.
David B. Manley January 28, 2012 at 12:27 AM
More tidbits for thought: Six of the nine top contributors to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign received over $161 billion in taxpayer bailouts, reports ProPublica, the independent, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative organization. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the healthcare law ("Obamacare") would reduce deficits by $210 billion in the first decade from fiscal year 2012 through 2021, given taxes, fees and health cost reductions mandated by the law. Similarly, the office reported that legislation passed last year by the House Republican majority to repeal the law would increase deficits and increase them by roughly the same amount. The Budget Office further concluded that the savings after 2021 would be in the range of half a percentage point of the nation’s total gross domestic product, a substantial amount. At this juncture, I do not have a preference for any of the candidates, or a final decision on healthcare, but these factoids may be interesting to those discussing the pros and cons.
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew January 28, 2012 at 03:09 AM
Well just for fun lets see the run out for our President's re-election finances. Talking about money at this level is fast approaching ludicrous since BOTH sides are somewhat less than clean. This by no means gives a pass to either side mind you, but one could start with Goldman Sachs? Personally I was taken aback by Romey's offshore banking in the Caymans, but then I realized my bank off-shored its operation to India some time ago, so we all have off-shore banks now don't we? Its just some have FAR better service than others.
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew January 28, 2012 at 03:56 AM
So we need to raise taxes eh? How about passing the can first folks... How many families could be fed by correcting this foolishness - no congressional interference either, this can be fixed by executive order. WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has preached that all Americans should pay their fair share in taxes, but a government report finds that tens of thousands of federal employees -- from staffers in Congress to federal agencies and even Obama's executive office -- collectively owe the government billions in back taxes. #Data from the Internal Revenue Service found that more than 279,000 federal employees and retirees owed $3.4 billion in back income taxes as of Sept. 30, 2010. #The data showed that 467 employees of the House of Representatives, or about 4.2 percent of the workforce, owed more than $8.5 million. In the Senate, 217 employees, or about 3 percent of the workforce, owed $2.13 million. #Obama's staff was not immune, either, with 36 people in Obama's executive office of nearly 1,800 workers -- about 2 percent -- owing the government $833,970 in back taxes. http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news/2012/jan/27/thousands-of-federal-workers-owe-irs-34b-in-back/
Tom Doolittle January 28, 2012 at 04:31 AM
@R-- With the exception of mainstream media and the two supposed "opposing" major political parties, the Citizens United case that observes corporations as "persons", thus able to give unlimited $amounts to candidates---is one of the top issues of the day--and SHOULD be a top election issue. It's not because obviously neither major party wants to buck it. They don't because these political parties really don't oppose each other on the issues that bear on the essence of our republic. That means third parties, which enjoy no significant support (yet) are left to defend personal rights. Other issues that are constittionally fundamental include: (1) the use of inflation to continue our so-called "way of life" and "living standard" (bankrupt soon); (2) protecting civil liberties; (3) states rights (even states have not protected them); (4) open government; (5) legaility of the income tax; and a few more. Somehow, if a candidate brings these up, they are marginalized by those that control the nation--the media and the two major political parties that...well..suposedly "oppose" each other.
Tom Doolittle January 28, 2012 at 06:22 AM
Free Speech for People, a nationwide nonpartisan effort to overturn Citizens United and corporate rights doctrines that unduly leverage corporate economic power into political power. http://freespeechforpeople.org/about http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Speech-For-People/140474869352859
Bill Thrasher January 28, 2012 at 06:05 PM
Forbes: The Obama administration has increased the federal job payroll by 140,000 since he took office, and that specifically excludes the military. In every case where the capital gains tax rates go up, revenue to the US treasury goes down. In every case where the capital gains tax rates go down, there is an increase in revenue to the US treasury. On 60 Minutes over a year ago, Obama admitted knowing this but said "It's a matter of fairness" God Help Us All, because the Obama administration is clueless as to how to do it.
Brian January 31, 2012 at 08:58 AM
The poll results show how polarized we are.
john penn January 31, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Remember your opinion does not count only your vote. Politicians are only concerned about getting re-elected. Lobbyists own these guys lock, stock, and barrel. It is good to have a blog where people can vent, but don't get too worked up and prepare to try and solve your own issues....like always.
Max January 31, 2012 at 02:01 PM
@John I won't say you are wrong, but I will say you are not correct. While lobbyists can promote and help carry all manner of Bills into law, the simple fact remains that they usually do not vote in a reps District. I speak from the perspective of a vol advocate for a national illness support group. Fact is, several hundred voters calling, emailing, and writing to their rep, on pending legislation DOES work. I can point toward many cases. To assume otherwise means the great American experiment is failed. It has not. It actually takes work, getting off one's duff, away from American Idol, and the excuse of, "I'm too busy," to become involved and to make changes happen.
John Wagner January 31, 2012 at 07:45 PM
No mention of Bowles-Simpson which was very disappointing. It is the only actual plan and sensible compromise I have seen that gets us beyond all of this unproductive arguing.
C.J. January 31, 2012 at 08:06 PM
It wouldn't work. Simpson-Bowles recommendations couldn't get a majority vote from their own bipartisan commission, in part, because every single Republicans on the commission refused to support it (among some Dems). They didn't like the tax hikes and the defense cuts that the report recommended, and frankly, I don't think Obama did either. Nor did he like the recommended Medicare or Social Security benefit cuts. If this report is popular, I suspect it's because most who support it don't know what's in it.
John Wagner January 31, 2012 at 08:21 PM
A correction, it actually got a "bipartisan majority" from the commission but not the "super majority" needed to force a required Senate vote. There were 11 of 18 votes in favor, with a supermajority of 14 votes needed to formally endorse the blueprint.[3] Voting for the report were Bowles, Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Cote, Durbin, Fudge, Gregg, Rivlin, Simpson, and Spratt. Voting against were Baucus, Becerra, Camp, Hensarling, Ryan, Schakowsky and Stern. Many Republicans and Democrats did/do support it as it addresses revenues and entitlement reform. The problem is it's not even being debated as a template to move forward.
don Gabacho January 31, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Adrienne, are you satisfied with Jacob's response? "Great question, Adrienne. We live-blog all kinds of things at Patch. Today, for example, we have live blogs of county commissioner meetings in Paulding and Cobb counties. We do City Council meetings, school boards, sports events. While Peter answered your question about the zoning meeting, you and all other Patch users should always feel free to suggest events worthy of live coverage to your local editors. Thanks! Since when has Jacobs been one of "we of the Patch" (too)?
C.J. January 31, 2012 at 09:34 PM
You're right about the vote. Thanks for the correction.
Max February 01, 2012 at 02:36 PM
IMHO, if a few of the Simpson-Bowles Report recommendations been implemented, we would have avoided a downgrade. The Report is a roadmap of what ought to be done, which by it's very nature is going to be unpopular. Ignoring the Report is the clearest signal that policymakers are unwilling to tackle this Nation's greatest issues.
Chad Smith February 01, 2012 at 04:59 PM
Nothing better than live blogging the drafting of a zoning code. "Is that a run-on sentence? Put a comma there!" Adrienne - do me a favor and move out of town. You probably are a renter.
Chad Smith February 01, 2012 at 05:02 PM
I think the US govt should pick 4-6 metro areas and tear them down. Make those people move elsewhere. Think of the contracts awarded to take away all the buildings. Lots of money pumping through the economy. Important and historical buildings could be loaded up on a flatbed and moved to a different city. The Seattle spaceneedle would look way better in Phoenix - and better weather!
Neil Stapley February 05, 2012 at 01:46 AM
Any State of the Union speech by any president is about getting them selves re-elected.
Jon Adams December 05, 2012 at 12:19 AM
This president should be taken out of offce. He is a waste. Has no idea what he is doing and is taking this great country down but then is not an American
K Wade December 05, 2012 at 01:50 AM
Jon, Jon, Jon.... I remember when I had my first beer.
jimmie December 05, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Wholeheartedly agree Jon..but in a society of moochers who live to take, reproduce, take some more and vote, this is the type of leader you get. It is on the backs of the true majority to get out and vote to stop this destructive trend.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something