Of course, Reagan believed government was the problem and Obama believes government is the solution. So let's not take this too far.

It seems like you missed a few parts of his speech. Allowing the tax cuts on the top earners to expire generates revenue. A growing economy generates revenue. The carbon cap (that you mention) is a revenue source.

Ending the banking crisis will save money (admittedly he didn't detail how he's going to do it, but the assumption is there). Cutting ag subsidies saves money. Getting out of Iraq saves money.

I'll agree that there's a long way to go to get to a smaller deficit, but honestly given that Iraq, the stimulus, and the banking bailout are all part of the deficit he's halving, it's not as impossible as it sounds.

Promises, promises...it's the politician's way. I don't think Obama is really any more similar to Reagan than any of his predecessors, but there is some elements of demagoguery in his election claims. The talent he has, which I'm not sure the "Great Communicator" had, is an ability to make you genuinely believe that he genuinely believes what he says. I love this book on Reagan as I think it brings a lot of depth and interest to the man, I'm not sure we've seen all of Obama just yet...

I just want to know why he actually said he doesn't want bigger government. It's not like that's why he got elected... why tell such a blatant and laughable lie?

An Obama speech should be the newest and most accurate intelligence test. If you fall for this pure garbage and convince yourself he is not lying or talking absolute nonsense then you really are dumber than soap. And not just the obvious lies for which you can only get half-credit, such as the size of the deficit he inherited, that he's not for bigger government, or that Americans created the automobile.

Obviously, the market is on to him and despises him, having lost a quarter of its value since his election, and falling again today another few hundred points in response to the nonsense that came out of his mouth last night.

We really may be setting ourselves up to test Rand's theories. When he raises taxes and punishes the productive members of our society and the economy continues into freefall, will we have a John Galt moment?

While Obama demonstrates Reagan's skill at oratory, in managerial style he seems to be aiming for Eisenhower. Ike was a Republican who was not a revolutionary - he understood that government had to take care of certain duties, and he did so.

Wasn't it Sean Wilentz who, in a recent New Yorker (?) or Atlantic (?) article), wrote that Reagan noted to his barber, "I set out five goals and managed to achieve four goals"? I'm not sure laying an ambitious agenda is a bad thing. Whether it's feasible to achieve each element of the agenda seems hard to pronosticate, because the macroeconomy seems difficult to predict, for one thing, and because while I realize you're implicitly saying "in general" these would seem hard to achieve, without knowing the specifics (and their price tags), it's hard to know what tradeoffs exist.

President Obama made a clear commitment last night to health care reform, a cause with the potential to motivate most of his supporters, and to expanding the federal role in education, a cause guaranteed to motivate some of his most fervent supporters.

But he started out with energy. That part of his speech was a disappointment, a clarion call for Magic Energy Beans. Obama called for subsidies and regulation, the policy tools of choice for elected officials wishing to maximize their chances of getting credit for things that go well while avoiding blame for developments the public doesn't like. These tools have time-tested value along that line.

On the merits, though, subsidies for "green energy technologies" and regulation to prohibit businesses and individuals from emitting some pollutants they do now are poor substitutes for the one thing we know will work -- to reduce energy usage, create incentives for increased energy efficiency, and make alternative (i.e. non-fossil fuel based) energy sources more attractive. The one thing we know will work is, of course, higher energy prices, and to get these the appropriate policy tool is taxation.

Yes, we could get lucky with one or more of the "green" technologies to be subsidized. A market-based cap on carbon pollution could even work -- OK, I don't really believe that, and most of the people who do don't understand the subject at all, but I'm going for a rhetorical flourish here. The point is that even new energy technologies with potential are hobbled at the beginning if they have to compete with inexpensive energy from fossil fuels, while cheap energy maximizes the incentives to game any regulatory system intended to reduce energy use.

Difficult policy objectives can rarely be attained only by steps that will always be popular. Raising energy prices through taxation would be a step difficult to explain to Americans -- but then, no one has really tried recently. Actually, the real cost of energy in the United States got two huge jolts within the last two years: the first a speculative frenzy that saw oil prices soar over $100/barrel, and the second the recession that reduced so many Americans' means to afford energy even at lower prices. It isn't enough. Obama's remarks on energy were a call for government to do all the things that cost nothing politically, and that isn't enough either.

I keep seeing "Will Obama's plan work?" on every website. Whether you like it or not it’s OUR plan and it’s all we've got so we're the ones who will have to make it work. The government has its place and so do we. All he can do is get on TV and tell us what opportunities the government is creating and try to inspire Americans to take responsibility. He can cut spending in Iraq and trim unsuccessful programs from the federal budget, but the rest of the economy growing is up to us. Let’s not forget the source of our economic problems... At the end of the day it all goes back to people not paying their bills. In order for this to work we have to differentiate between the people who default because of unavoidable health and/or family issues and those who simple can't live within their means. Our capitalist ideals have led to a vast number of people who don't understand the value of a dollar because they have always been exposed to excessive consumer lending without the appropriate education on credit. I would like to see Obama speaking more directly towards those who are behind on their bills to try to explain to them that lending is a good thing, but comes with great responsibility. Oh yeah and loan officers should probably try this too. So call me naive, but I don't think these goals are unachievable. They will just take a combined effort from all of us. Yes that means even those of us who are paying our bills on time, because our individual successes will not last forever. I liked the part when he tried to inspire people to get a good education, serve their country in some way, and effectively raise and educate their children. This is the only way to prevent the smart and rich from making empty investments in the poor and stupid. Don't over regulate and cap free market competition, educate the consumer.

Obama will need to cut defense spending by roughly 60% -- currently announced reductions won't suffice. He needs to get out of Iraq faster than planned and limit commitments in Afghanistan on which he has promised the contrary. He will need to fully review research and procurement. I would also postpone investments into missile defense and the nuclear arsenal to set up new frameworks and define arms control options.
If Obama does that and the economy recovers by the end of 2010 he has a chance to deliver on his promise.

Josef