Very Crowded Memorial Weekend Kick-Off: ‘Hangover … 
ABC, NBC & Fox Go To DC Court Against Alki … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
Shareholders Quiz Time Warner Chief On Political Ties And … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Cannes: J.C. Chandor Sets Next Project ‘A Most … 
Hannibal Classics Sets Cast For Nic Cage Pic … 
Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
About 37.75 million viewers watched President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address, which featured a farewell appearance by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and aired live across 14 broadcast and cable networks. That was down 12% from last year’s speech, which was watched by 42.79 million people and down 21% from Obama’s first State of the Union in 2010 (48 million). Like his approval ratings, Obama’s TV ratings have been sliding since the post-inauguration high of 52.37 million viewers who tuned in for his address to the joint session of Congress in February 2009. Among the cable news networks, Fox News dominated the field with 3.8 million viewers vs. 2.8 million for MSNBC and 2.7 million for CNN.
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.
Loading ...
People are tired of this guy talking down to them at an eight grade level.
If the Republicans stopped acting like 8th graders, then maybe he would….
So then why do the Democrats and Independents have to suffer? Of that right, because the president is insisting on treating all American citizens like 8th graders!
Yeah, let’s go back to the days of Bush and Reagan and..oh
yes, lets go back to reagan! the 80s were a million times better than where we are now
Unless you were poor or part of the lower middle class. But who cares about those lazy a-holes.
You seemingly know how to use the internet. Why don’t you do yourself a favor and educate yourself. The facts are that people at all levels of income improved with the policies of Ronald Reagan. You can’t believe the pablum the msm and the democrat party feeds you, otherwise you are just one of the useful idiots.
That’s nice, except for the fact that the “poor” class has expanded under obama while the middle class has shrunk alarmingly. but don’t let FACTS get in your way…
Actually my wife and I WERE part of the lower middle class when we voted for Jimmy Carter the first time and Reagan won anyway and we no longer are because of Reagan’s efforts and policies.
In economic terms the worst, and I mean BY FAR the worst three years of our fifty plus years have been the last three where in literally a decade of progress in our financial situation has been erased by this administration and its policies. In just three short years we’ve gone from planning our “eventual” retirement to trying to plan for what now seems like the inevitable loss of both our jobs in healthcare related fields and wondering how we’ll survive.
Even so, as bad as it’s been for us it pales in comparison to the damage suffered by the dozen former co-workers of ours who have been unemployed for between two or three years depending on when they lost their jobs and have no employment prospects on the horizon.
You keep listening to the DNC and their talking head friends in the media and repeating their falsehoods, but for those of us who’ve actually had to live through the last six administrations we’ll tell you from first hand experience how much we wish Obama were a third the President that Reagan, or either Bush was.
I was poor, I thrived under Reagan as did most of my poor family and friends. Your stereotype is not only inaccurate but an insult to poor people. Leftists like yourself seem to believe that poor equates to helpless and that poor people must rely on the “charity” of a cold hearted, uncaring government using stolen money from working people to buy our votes.
New Flash: not all poor people are as corrupt as you are.
Oh, and by the way, I’m not a lazy a-hole. Another one of your inaccurate, leftist fallacies.
Clearly you do not remember the 80s. Reagan’s economy was a disaster for the first 3.5 years – until he raised taxes.
Read some history.
Looks like you’re the one who needs to read some history. Reagan wouldn’t have won an overwhelming victory in 1984 if the facts supported your claims. You’re entitled to your own opinion, you’re not entitled to your own facts. Btw, I was around then, also during what I’m sure you consider the ‘wonderful’ Carter years, so don’t try to b.s. me.
Tax rates went from 70% down to 28%. I was a taxpayer the whole time. You should turn off Rachel Madcow and try to find a real history book.
Gosh I am only 76, must have somehow slept thru the history you cite. I do remember the 23% interest rate under Carter that scared hell out of me.
Reagan actually restored restored a sense of dignity to the office after Carter’s pusillanimous performance. Any other viewpoint means you were not there.
Yes, let’s go back to the 1980′s!!!
When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation. The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:
1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.
During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
So yes, let’s go back to the 80′s.
The problem is, Reagan couldn’t even get nominated in today’s Republican party. His policies would be considered liberal. You offer a good if limited analysis- the problems of the 80s, however, are vastly different than they are today, and that calls for different solutions. Even Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman, has been saying for the last 4-5 years that the current economic situation wouldn’t benefit from additional tax cuts.
Reagan’s deregulation and accelleration of regressive taxation continued unabated for 28 years. Do you think Bush had the ability to clean up after the financial meltdown?
Hey, you left out one factoid: In eight years in office, Reagan increased the National Debt by 168% to “pay for” all that economic fantasy you espoused. If creditors would let me, I’d buy a mansion and a Tesla, then pass the bill off to future generations, too. But that’s just as much of a fantasy.
Better things to do then watch this clown.
Jimmy Carter has to happy that he will be moving down on the “worst Presidents” list.
Nah, the reason ratings are down is because who tunes in for reruns?, he said nothing new but a bunch of washed up ideas that didn’t work the first time.
“Anyone who says America is in decline doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”
With stuff like that being said amidst high unemployment, no wonder people are tuning out.
By far the most idiotic comment of his I read from the campaign speech is the one where he claimed the union was strong.
This guy is so utterly disconnected from the reality that is unfolding the street it’s truly frightening.
Even in the deepest part of the Great Depression, the unemployment rate was “only” 25%. That means 75% of eligible people were employed. So even though a lot of people were down on their luck, many more were not. Those 75% might have considered the union to still be strong even in the midst of the devastated economy. It’s all a matter of perspective.
No. People were tired of having a President with an 8th grade level. That’s why they voted for Obama.
What’s an 8th grade level genius?
Look in the mirror…
We have a man in the oval office who never managed an empty store-he promised to fix the economy and has failed. Plain and simple!
With all due respect, there are a lot of outlets to watch it so you don’t need to see the entire thing live. Recaps on every news show all night and all day today, and tonight, for example.
I would have not slept had I watched. The same old twisting of the truth keeps me up at night.
Jed- When he comes on- just flip to the re runs of the old tv shows. That is what I do-
Not really news. Happens to every president.
I watched about 15 minutes of this speech and every minute got increasingly angrier. Reflux then occurred and so I changed the channel and it all went away. I caught the commentaries after the speech so I wouldn’t throw up and still get informed. How many times did he say it’s George Bush’s fault anyway?
It is weird when they keep blaming the guy who destroyed the economy.
That’s the best statement of the day:)
actor & Tom, I agree wholeheartedly. Oh, and pass the Kool-Aid please.
I am tired of the dems and reps giving a line of bull. All they do is spend our money and we get nothing in return. We need to throw them all out… He has hgis 4 years… that is enough…. It time we american get rids of them all….
Well said!
As an out of work over-50-year-old technical support analyst whose job was outsourced, I wish his jobs program as outlined in the State of the Union address didn’t boil down to “Fire a geezer, hire a teen, get a tax break.”
Warren Buffet’s Secretary in the audience like some poor destitute victim of America was too much to bear.
Oh it so unfair she has to pay tax, I’ll bet this lady is knocking down a quarter million bucks or so.
If she is going to be used as a prop to show us how rotten America is, we should get a look at her tax return.
Drudge says (now on Drudge) her salary is between $200.000 and $500,000. Some secretary. LOL!!!
It could be yes. but Drudge isn’t the gospel. He only posts stories found elsewhere 1st of all, and boy oh boy does Drudge have a “not for Newt” slant, geesh.
Just answer the basic question that’s being asked:
Should someone like his secretary, making “between $200-500K”, pay 30% of her income in taxes, while someone earning millions, or billions in Buffet’s case, pay 15%, just because it was capital gains, not income?
He lost me when he said we all need to be treated fairly and equally. Excuse me? Then why do some get health care waivers and not others? Why are some people who commit voter intimidation not prosecuted? Why are 47% paying no income tax? Why are some oil drilling companies told to stop drilling? Why are working bankers called “fat cats” and hard working doctors said to perform tonsilectomies to get more income? Why are “big oil” profits bad but GM profits good? Fairness is not apparent in this administration.
well said! couldn’t have said it better myself!
Voter intimidation? Seriously? You beating that dead horse again? Two black dudes in Philly? That’s what has you upset? Hell, even the Bush Justice Dept. declined to pursue that case. And talk about intimidation- how about the notorious case of US Dist. Attorneys who were pressured by Rove and others in the Bush administration to bring bogus cases against their political enemies- none of those folks with REAL power ever saw the inside of a courtroom, except Scooter Libby of course but that was for outing a CIA operative.
As for 47% paying no income taxes- dude, you need to read a little more. That statistic doesn’t mean they paid NO taxes, it means they didn’t earn enough to pay federal INCOME taxes, or they used legitimate deductions to bring their taxable income to zero. those people still DO pay taxes every day- sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, state and local taxes.
The point about fairness is this- we all need to eat and have shelter and enjoy clean air and water and the other basics of life. If the average American is only earning $50k/year and is paying 30% in federal taxes, then another say 10% in other taxes, that only leaves around $30k to live on. Say your rent is $1000 a month, now you have $18k, car, insurance, utilities, health insurance take another $1000/month, now you are down to $6k to pay for food, clothes, other costs of living and what are you left with? Maybe a couple thousand- and if you have to travel or take a little vacation- forget it. you got nothing left.
Now the uber-rich like Mitt and his pals, they are making $56k per DAY- how much more does he need? Can he eat more meals, sleep more nights, breath more air? No, so the fairness comes in here- if he is making that much, then he should be paying at least as much as a percentage as the guy making 50 or 100K.
Last thing numb nuts- I’ve had it with the party line that says if you raise taxes on the rich they won’t invest in new jobs. These guys are the “job creators”, right? If so, then I say CUT their taxes after they show that they have invested in companies/business that have actually created jobs in the US. But we are just keeping their taxes low in the hopes that they will invest in some actual product, and not just in a hedge fund that is betting on other hedge funds in this vast, unregulated and ultimately corrupt swaps marketplace that generate nothing but phony profits in a kind of worldwide game of musical chairs.
Pardon the rant- I’m just done with letting republicans lie and take control of the narrative.
Liblawyer
Get a clue. Your lack of having a firm grip on economists is overwhelming. The houses, cars, vacations and daily activities all go to paying taxes as well. They spend more, they pay more. Capitol gains taxes are moneys that have already been taxed at 35 percent. Then taxed again at 15. Do you get that? It was lowered under Clinton then again under bush because the Feds received more revenue ie taxes by lowering this number. To criticize bush is to swing at clinton as well. Diminishing return was never met. We have a spending problem, not a revenue one. I will not call you names but your bunch (lawyers) did a great job protecting your income in the healthcare bill. It’s called hypocracy. As long as your revenue is fine, I want all taxes to effect the other guy. Obviously we’re talking federal income taxes. That’s 50 percent taxes on Capitol gains when included with corporate taxes which are just pass through taxes.
Wow you managed to miss his entire point and not answer or rebut one of his questions. Kudos.
Correction Lib lawyer….. Bush did pursue the voter intimidation at the polls. Eric Holder & Obama dropped the case as soon as they took over.
Why are 47% paying no income tax? Yeah, let’s worry about the people who don’t even make enough money for us to want them to pay FEDERAL income tax, they do pay state tax and plenty of others.
Let’s not worry about people like Mitt Romney who make 40+ million dollars and pay a little more then 14% in taxes. I make 50K a year which is less then he makes in a day but still I’m paying 22-25% in taxes.
I don’t think big oil profits are bad but the tax loops we’re giving these multi-million often billion dollar companies are ridiculous. The fact that oil gets 5 times more in funding then alternative energy is wrong and just plain stupid. They don’t need help, the other energy option do need help and we should make them a priority.
thank you turned off!
I hope the waivers from the health care law get some attention in the debates or during the general election. Why this issue isn’t front and center all the time astounds me. Obama sells his fair approach to health care, leveling the playing field for all, then exempts hundreds of companies from the regulations. A little kingdom in Washington granting favors to those it favors. Disgusting.
how many people watched it online?? do you have those numbers?
My wife and I both remarked how subdued the congress was, this STOU was — much less applause and standing ovations than previously.
Has anyone seen that movie Idiocracy!
Yes! great movie, reminds me of this Administration!
“Anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”
Now here’s a desperate comment! Unfortunately it’s way past time for ALL Washington Politicians to get their head out of the sand and receive their “Get In Touch with Reality Briefing”. And while they are at it, they may want to enroll in Chinese 101 as it will certainly come in handy if they don’t change their uncooperative SELF-SERVING ways.
The following SOTU comment was perhaps the only inspiring sound byte made during the entire address, the rest sounded like the same ole do-nothing meaningless campaign rhetoric. Sadly, AMERICA DESERVES BETTER and WE CAN DO BETTER.
“These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.” Perhaps it’s time to invoke a Prior Military Service Requirement for ALL of our National Leaders — especially the Commander-in-Chief. Put this Bill together and SIGN IT NOW as we are in desperate need of Leaders who understand and practice Teamwork in Washington!
Unfortunately, we have completely turned Politics into a Major League National Sport and BOTH major Political Parties are an American Embarrassment. Therefore, both Parties should be immediately abolished and COMBINED into ONE COHESIVE AMERICAN PUBLIC-SERVANT Team until we can get America back on a committed and stable path to recovery…20-years sounds like a good start.
“UNITED America Stands a Chance to Prevail, but DIVIDED America Will Surely Fail!”
Even though you can not spell you are absolutly correct. In fact I want a bumper sticker that says ABO (Anybody But Obama)
How about “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice SHAME ON ME!”
I recorded the whole program, heard and read how boring and repetitive it was and chose to erase it without viewing. Obama has lost his touch and I refuse to cast a vote for him in November.
This is so silly , Myself and everyone i know WATCH it on the INTERNET while we BLOG because its free and available, Not so in SPORTS where i have to turn on my TV for access.
measuring viewership of a certain thing by TV is SOO 1990′s and truly don’t give the accurate account.
At work today not one of my blue collar associates mentioned the SOTU. I didn’t watch it and I don’t know of anyone who did watch on the internet or on T.V.
Polls are also so 1990′s unless your guy or your side is in the lead, correct?
It was hard to avoid watching B.O. he was on all major networks.
I watched Alfred Hitchcock. It was alot less frightening then B.O.’s vision on the future of the United States.
B.O. has to go. I pray this was his last State of the Union address.
Did you actually listen to his speech? So, you are afraid of bringing jobs back to the US, investing in our schools, and making the US great again? What’s wrong with your hearing?
So what part of “income tax” is sales tax, property tax? When you try to alter facts be a bit more subtle! Wait! Try reading.
Viewership was non-existent here in Lexington- the Wildcats were playing Georgia.
maybe because we all watched on youtube? i know i did.
When you run a repeat of a show, it almost always gets a lesser rating, when you run it for a third time, it gets worse. The barry has been running the same show over and over again, people are tired of it, him and his sanctimonious scolding. By the way, who decides what is “fair”? The barry seems to think he should be the one to decide/demand that 30 percent he talked about. All I see is an additional amount of money available for the government to waste. Sure won’t be used to buy down the debt. Just blow it on some new program or buddy CEO who needs 500 million just before his company goes belly up.
I didn’t watch it. I felt it be best to lower some carbon footprints.
At 72 years of age I knew the speech would be nothing but a Wishlist and a campaign speech. And since the MSM has taken over the political process already I turn off any channel when the News media “talking Heads” start telling us how to think the candidates.
And my thinking is Anybody but Obama.