ShareThis Page

Readers say Obama's upbeat speech lacks specifics

| Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2014, 1:31 a.m.

Several Alle-Kiski Valley residents said President Obama's State of the Union address offered a positive message, but was light on details.

“I thought it was an optimistic pep talk to the nation,” said Bill Godfrey of Harrison. “I was glad he concentrated on the positive and the accomplishments of his administration. I think people dwell too much on the negative.”

At the same time, Godfrey, a Democrat, said the president didn't offer much in the way of a road map for accomplishing his goals.

“It wasn't specific on what he's going to do,” Godfrey said. “He didn't really go in-depth on any particular thing.”

“It was kind of weak,” said Linda Alworth, a Republican from Gilpin. “Everything is perfect according to him. I couldn't get a lot out of it.

“The best part was the end when they clapped for that poor soldier,” said Alworth, referring to the standing ovation dedicated to Army Ranger Sgt. 1st Class Cory Remsburg, who sat next to First Lady Michelle Obama.

President Obama lauded the Arizona man, who was nearly killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. The president urged Americans to emulate Remsburg's determination to never give up.

“He did touch on a lot of things that are on the minds of the American public,” said Mable Mazza, a Democrat from Allegheny Township. “But I think we need to implement these things to rekindle our confidence in the government.”

Obama's speech dealt largely with improving the economy, touching on tax and immigration reform, boosting education, manufacturing jobs, entrepreneurs and research, supporting clean energy and raising the minimum wage.

Mazza and Alworth said they can see both sides of the argument to raise the minimum wage.

“It's beneficial to some, but it might reduce the workforce for others,” Mazza said. “Some smaller businesses can't afford this expense.”

Alworth, who owns two businesses in Armstrong County, said she doesn't necessarily mind increasing the minimum wage, but wants to make sure people are working hard enough to earn the raise.

“You don't want anyone to suffer. I don't mind paying people that work,” she said. “Everyone is supposed to take responsibility and work harder. But it seems like sometimes the harder we work, the further behind we get.”

Alworth said she has a similar impression of the push to make sure everyone has health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

She said the goal of the law may be to insure more people, but her policy was canceled and now she's facing a plan with higher deductibles and premiums.

“I'd like to see people with health care, but it's going to hit the middle class again,” she said. “The middle class ends up paying for everything. That and the small businesses.”

Mazza said she's been disappointed in the rollout of the health insurance program: “When you can't trust your government, something is wrong.”

Alworth and Godfrey noted the president's intent to use executive orders when possible.

“It was interesting when he was saying if the Congress won't do it, he's going to forge ahead on his own,” Godfrey said.

Godfrey said he particularly liked Obama's message of working together.

“Everyone working together, individuals doing their part — that's my creed, too,” said Godfrey, who helped found the Natrona Comes Together revitalization initiative. “I feel like getting up tomorrow and doing more for the community.”

Liz Hayes is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-226-4680 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.