After President Barack Obama delivered his State of the Union address, the Saint Stephen’s students and faculty had various reactions. Obama’s speech was his second- shortest State of the Union, covering topics ranging from the economy to climate change, topics relevant to teenagers and adults alike. Obama mostly focused on putting “the nation before the party” and working with the Republicans to pass bipartisan bills.

Upper School science teacher Ms. Jennifer Davis said she was proud of the President’s speech, as he spoke about issues pertinent not only to politics, but also to science.

“I was most excited that he talked about global warming and that he addressed the challenges that have been happening politically,” she said.

Davis added that she liked the way Obama proposed to unite as a nation in order to solve problems and pass bills.

“I thought he did a good job talking about his job relative to Senate and the House and the politics and how everyone has to come together as a nation to solve one nation’s problems and put their partisanship [aside],” she said.

Senior Amelia Risner said she agreed that Obama excelled at focusing on bipartisanship in his speech, which she felt was different from his recent inaugural address.

“[The speech] was surprisingly bipartisan; it gave moderates hope,” she said.

Risner added that she liked how Obama approached the domestic issues with proposals to bring back the efficiency in Medicare and Medicaid by making appropriate cuts. She said it was also nice to see that he touched upon the old issue of the reduction of the deficit.

“He brought up the deficit plan, which was something he seemed to be avoiding,” she said.

Junior Zack Kanter said he was glad the troops would be coming home soon, but was afraid the plan to withdraw from Afghanistan would backfire.

“I can’t really disagree or agree, but I like [fewer] troops going there,” Kanter said.

Kanter also said he disliked Obama’s proposal to ban guns, as it goes against the Second Amendment, but he liked the idea of strengthening security.

“I agree with the background checks; with those things there will be safer gun control,” he said.

Kanter added that the aspect he disliked the most was raising taxes on the rich.

“As good as it sounds, it won’t help the middle class,” he said, adding that he thought by lowering taxes, prices would go down, which would result in more jobs.

Senior Ben Israel pointed out the nebulousness of the speech.

“I felt like he laid a more general agenda,” he said.

Israel added that Obama was not specific enough in talking about young Americans.

“He was especially vague when he mentioned pre-school education. He gave a statement instead of a framework,” he said.

Israel said the efficiency of Obama’s second term will all depend on how well Obama can persuade the Republicans to go with his plans.

“It depends [on] how much support he can get from the Republican Party,” he said.

Risner said in the future, she thinks Obama needs to be bipartisan, to pass agendas with the split Congress, especially concerning financial issues.

“I think he should use financial compromises as leverage for social liberal legislation,” she said.

Davis said she thinks that because presidents can take more risks and be more assertive in their second term, Obama will be more productive and efficient with passing his agenda in the next four years.

“This term will be more successful because he can be more dramatic and assertive,” she said.