Comments about the State of the Union Speech.

Admiral Ackbar

CAGiversary!
Feedback
25 (100%)
Post your thoughts about the State of the Union. I didn't see a thread up. I just have one major comment myself.

President spoke just two paragraphs at the end of his speech about the Gulf Coast.

"A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency - and stays at it until they are back on their feet. So far the Federal government has committed 85 billion dollars to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. We are removing debris, repairing highways, and building stronger levees. We are providing business loans and housing assistance. Yet as we meet these immediate needs, we must also address deeper challenges that existed before the storm arrived.

"In New Orleans and in other places, many of our fellow citizens have felt excluded from the promise of our country. The answer is not only temporary relief, but schools that teach every child, and job skills that bring upward mobility, and more opportunities to own a home and start a business. As we recover from a disaster, let us also work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope, and rich in opportunity."

It''s near the very end of the state of the union.

I find that's just pitiful. It's like he doesn't care. When did Louisiana and Mississippi stop being part of the Union. These are our fellow citizens down there and the goverment may have promised money but it's being used haphazardly and is barely helping. Meanwhile, The congresss and president are stuck in gridlock as, after five months, people can no longer pay the morgates due on their destroyed homes.

This should have been a major part of his speech. The speech is called, "The State of the Union."

When did the Gulf Coast stop being part of the Union?
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']It's like he doesn't care.[/quote]
No "like" about it, my friend.

When did the Gulf Coast stop being part of the Union?
The sheer vulnerability of our nation to tragedy, and the poor federal response, ought to have his approval ratings in the single digits. His legacy is entirely built upon terror attacks in the United States, and his promise to make certain that Americans would be safe from future tragedy. The failure to do that, in addition to the appalling evidence of cronyism in the form of Michael Brown, ought to make him the least liked president of all time.

Regrettably, we live in an era where we don't think critically, because we have Air America or Sean Hannity et al telling us our thoughts instead.
 
Though, truth be told, his ethanol proposal is pretty radical for him, and one that will certainly compromise his free-market approach to innovation. Kudos to that, at least.

This marks the second time I agreed with him. I hope this turns out better than agreement #1, in which he pledged in a prior SOTU to offer tax breaks to companies that hire ex-felons. That never went anywhere but the SOTU, and would be a great help, IMO, in reducing reoffense rates (which are astronomical).
 
Since when does "care" have anything to do with people taking charge for their own destiny? They ARE rebuilding. money IS being spent. You think haphazzard spending is a republican problem? Get real, it an inherrent function of government and bureaucracy.

You like democrats becuase they "care" or feel your pain? That's great, that and a dollar will buy you some coffee. The Bush hate is an endless well. Spouting furiously and spooging on everything that surrounds itself so it can find solice in it's miserable company.

How does mentioning new orleans and mississippi mean they aren't a part of the union? Why should a cespool of a failed example of democratic welfare philosophy become a representation of america as a whole? It doesn't, and shouldn't be the thrust of the state of the union address. There are global issues more important than the plight of people who failed to take care of themselves.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Since when does "care" have anything to do with people taking charge for their own destiny? They ARE rebuilding. money IS being spent. You think haphazzard spending is a republican problem? Get real, it an inherrent function of government and bureaucracy.

You like democrats becuase they "care" or feel your pain? That's great, that and a dollar will buy you some coffee. The Bush hate is an endless well. Spouting furiously and spooging on everything that surrounds itself so it can find solice in it's miserable company.

How does mentioning new orleans and mississippi mean they aren't a part of the union? Why should a cespool of a failed example of democratic welfare philosophy become a representation of america as a whole? It doesn't, and shouldn't be the thrust of the state of the union address. There are global issues more important than the plight of people who failed to take care of themselves.[/QUOTE]

So you don't seem outraged that over $200 billon is currently allocated towards the war in Iraq, in which rebuilding is an unsubstantial part of that money (and didn't Paul Bremer or Wolfowitz claim that the money gained from the war would pay for restoration?), yet when Bush claims $60 billion in further funding to help rebuild part of the USofgoddamnedA is too much, you agree with him, as all those dumbass blacks got themselves into this mess?

yikes.
 
Thats 200 billion over three years. Don't distort the proportions. And 150 billion is projected to be spent on katrina rebuilding on those "blacks" you so like to catagorize by race. I, on the other hand, don't see them as requiring a racial label. They are phenomenon of a philosophy of socialist practices that are touted as "core" democratic values and a shining example of their failures. The problem, and standard democratic response, is that not enough money has been spent on it to work. It's always the same game and always the same result - we didn't care enough about them, but what we taught them was that they don't need to care about themselves becuase the government will care for them.

The funny thing is that most of the "blacks" you speak of have had enough of the lies and the false "caring" and aren't going to return to New orleans to be treated like a democratic voter farm. They turned out to be smarter than you and your kind.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'] it an inherrent function of government and bureaucracy.[/QUOTE]
It's an inherent function of a government that does care and is poorly administrated. Had we more competent leaders, this situation would be somewhat different.

[quote name='bmulligan']The funny thing is that most of the "blacks" you speak of have had enough of the lies and the false "caring" and aren't going to return to New orleans to be treated like a democratic voter farm. They turned out to be smarter than you and your kind.[/QUOTE]
Because they don't already vote for republicans most of the time?:whistle2:s
 
"George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People"

Thanks Kanye for the funniest line of 2005....
 
[quote name='bmulligan']

The funny thing is that most of the "blacks" you speak of have had enough of the lies and the false "caring" and aren't going to return to New orleans to be treated like a democratic voter farm. They turned out to be smarter than you and your kind.[/QUOTE]

do you honesty think poeple aren't returning to the Gulf because of Democrats? Give me a fucking break.

They aren't returning because the place reeks, mold has infected most homes, there are 2500+ unaccounted for bodies, there are no jobs, only 1 in 5 businesses are limping along, N.O. had to lay off police because no taxes are coming in and it is still a wasteland.....but it's the Demmycrats. Please.

I wouldn't be saying much about the intelligence of my "kind" when stupid crap like that flow from yours.
 
Owned.

And did anyone else find it funny when it talked about our addiction to oil? I mean the irony was overwhelming.
 
[quote name='evanft']Owned.

And did anyone else find it funny when it talked about our addiction to oil? I mean the irony was overwhelming.[/QUOTE]

It's pandering, pure and simple. It's complete bullshit, and it's going to die sooner than Social Security did. You think someone that far to the right wants to impose changes to the energy industry? Don't bet the farm on it, that's for certain.

The contrast (or some might say "hypocrisy") between Bush's warnings of "isolationism" and his call for self-reliance for energy is interesting. What's more interesting is that Mr. "I don't listen to polls" ditched his ANWR goldrush plans.
 
Bush is pretty much just a placeholder now.

He's cut taxes too deeply to ever get any new initiatives off the ground, especially with the money drain from the terrorist haven he created himself in Iraq.

And his tactics and lies have turned off so many people, both domestically and foreign, that if he told the country the sky was blue you'd see a nationwide rush to look out the window and catch him in another fib.

So he'll just squat in office for another three years and hope for more appointments that will allow him to shift the country further to the right. Besides those appointments, he really has no other point now.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's pandering, pure and simple. It's complete bullshit, and it's going to die sooner than Social Security did. You think someone that far to the right wants to impose changes to the energy industry? Don't bet the farm on it, that's for certain.

The contrast (or some might say "hypocrisy") between Bush's warnings of "isolationism" and his call for self-reliance for energy is interesting. What's more interesting is that Mr. "I don't listen to polls" ditched his ANWR goldrush plans.[/QUOTE]

I didn't watch the speech, but I saw the headline for my local paper mentioned the addiction of oil and I laughed. When your VP is Dick Cheney, you really need to examine what you say before you open your mouth or else you look like a fucking idiot.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']
He's cut taxes too deeply to ever get any new initiatives off the ground, especially with the money drain from the terrorist haven he created himself in Iraq.[/quote]

Right, taxes were cut so deeply that the economy grew almost 3% last year. Wow, no doubt, you're going to major in econ.

...he really has no other point now.

Kind of like the vast majority of your posts.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Right, taxes were cut so deeply that the economy grew almost 3% last year. Wow, no doubt, you're going to major in econ.[/QUOTE]

And if you ignore the negative savings rate, in addition to (or part and parcel with) the increasing proportion of credit as consumer spending, then you're also not going to major in econ.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And if you ignore the negative savings rate, in addition to (or part and parcel with) the increasing proportion of credit as consumer spending, then you're also not going to major in econ.[/QUOTE]

That's a little different than blaming all the county's woes on a tax cut and had nothing to do with his argument although it is a component of my growth statement.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']That's a little different than blaming all the county's woes on a tax cut and had nothing to do with his argument although it is a component of my growth statement.[/QUOTE]

I dunno, saying that tax cuts have decreased government's revenue, and thus make it more difficult to suggest pilot projects or initiatives is a pretty valid point, I think - and considering he still has three years to go, it's one to consider.

However, the reality is that, both you and I know that government expenditures is as closely correlated with government revenue as the chances of Ken Griffey, Jr. getting injured this year is related to the number of times "Friends" is syndicated each week.

Perhaps that's a bad example, since the probability of a Griffey injury approaches 1. Pardon my OTness; since the Bengals lost a few weeks back, I've been getting ready for baseball. fucking assholes traded Sean Casey, and kept a glut of shitty outfielders.

Oh yes...on topic...down with Bush! ;)
 
[quote name='evanft']Cindy Sheehan was arrested during the speech for wearing a shirt inside the room. A blog's take.[/QUOTE]
That was dumb on her part. She should have sat there quietly and everytime Dubya mentioned Iraq, all the cameras would have turned to her. The press would have been waiting for her to make a spectacle of herself and she would have gotten a lot of screen time.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']That was dumb on her part. She should have sat there quietly and everytime Dubya mentioned Iraq, all the cameras would have turned to her. The press would have been waiting for her to make a spectacle of herself and she would have gotten a lot of screen time.[/QUOTE]
Civil Disobedience goes a lot further than screen time. Think 1960s civil rights movements.
 
"Alito is a menace to our country," Kerry said to the Senate. "He will..."

"Can we vote for cloture now?" a random Senator shouted out.

"Sure, let's end this crap," Dick Cheney answered. "Let's vote and end this crap."

"Gerwarger... Aliotioto!" Kennedy objected.

The vote went ahead anyway, and Cheney counted the votes. "We have 114 votes for cloture and 3 votes against." Cheney paused for a moment. "That doesn't seem right, but whatever. Debate has now eneded!"

Guards came in, gagged Kerry, and dragged him away. Kennedy was fed whiskey until he passed out.

"Now we'll vote on confirming Alito," Cheney said. "Hell... we know how that vote is going. Let's just go ahead and say he's confirmed. Any objections?"

Reid began to speak, but then Cheney pulled out a gun and shot him in the kneecaps.

"No objections," Cheney stated.

Alito ran up to where the nine justice were seated, grabbed Sandra Day O'Connor, and tossed her out of her seat. He then pumped his arms in the air and yelled, "I'm now a Supreme Court Justice, and you call can suck it and suck it hard! Woooo!"

"It's a good day," Bush said as he sat in his office. "Now I just need to knock 'em dead with my State of the Union Address. Hey, Alito, everytime I announce a new wacky scheme, I need you to stand up and shout, 'That's perfectly Constitutional!'"

"No problem," Alito answered. "Hey, I don't like some of the other Justices and am thinking of having them whacked. Is that okay?"

Bush shrugged his shoulders. "I don't got no say over the Judicial Branch; do what you want. Now, let's get speakerin'!"

Bush stood in the Capitol prepared to speak, but up in the rafters a woman shouted, "Bush lied! People died!"

Bush squinted to see who it was. "Cindy Sheehan? Who the hell let her in here?"

"How many more people must die before I get more media coverage!" Cindy yelled.

"I'm sorry about your son, but shut the hell up!" Bush shouted back.

"I'm not sorry! He was a baby killer who fought the freedom fighters in Iraq who only want to blow up children in peace!"

Bush shook his head. He then turned to some guards all in black. "Gestapo, take her outside and shoot her."

"That's perfectly Constitutional!" Alito said.

The guards quickly made their way to Cindy Sheehan, grabbed her, and dragged her outside. Soon, the sound of a gunshot was heard. Bush sighed in relief. "Well, that's that. Now on to my speech.

"You may have noticed my guest sitting next to the First Lady. They are a bomb sniffing dog from Afghanistan who is here in honor of his service, Chuck Norris because he's cool, and a live grizzly bear... though I forgot why he's here." Bush looked to Laura. "Stop fidgeting or he may kill you... No, not the bear; it's tranqued. I'm talking about Chuck Norris."

Bush cleared his throat and looked back to the teleprompter. "America is a strong country, and we've made great progress. Unfortunately, my measure to save Social Security was blocked..."

The Democrats all stood and cheered. "Screw America!" one exclaimed

"You're not supposed to cheer at that, dinguses!" Bush yelled at them.

Suddenly, the bomb sniffing dog ran over and tackled Senator Schumer. All the others quieted in fear.

"Good dog," Bush said. "Anyway, I have other plans, and this whole Alito confirmation has proved that the Democrats are too impotent to stop me."

"Yay me!" Alito stood up and cheered.

"One thing is alternative fuels." Bush stopped and checked the teleprompter again. "This sounds boring," Bush grumbled. "There are many ways we can power our vehicles," Bush continued, speaking up, "such as with corn, grass..." Bush's eyes started to close. "...wood chips..."

"Bush's falling asleep during his own speech has caused some controversy," the anchorman said. "Conservatives have said it just shows how relaxed Bush is with his policies that he can actually go to sleep when talking about them. Liberals say that his falling asleep proved this is all about oil and that we must get out of Iraq now. When asked to elaborate, they just kept repeating themselves. When asked for comment, Bush said he thought he was just talking to Congress, and, if he catches us spying on him again, he'll murder us all.

"After the break, remember to stay tuned for our special feature: Who will Iran nuke first."
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Right, taxes were cut so deeply that the economy grew almost 3% last year. Wow, no doubt, you're going to major in econ.[/QUOTE]

bmulligan,

You gripe about Dems and lefties automatically arguing points without thinking, and then turn around and do it yourself.

I was obviously speaking of the fact that the deficit is growing, and is expected to grow ad infinitum, making it hard for Bush to really pay for anything new without a tax increase. In fact, he's liable to have to cut services drastically, which will cause holy hell to be raised across the nation.

So rather than automatically jumping on to argue with me using irrelevant facts and ad homeniem insults, how's about you think about the point I'm making and address it directly?

I'll even give you another try right now. Read my original post and argue that (1) Bush is not a placeholder, (2) Bush really can afford to launch all sorts of initiatives and (3) the legacy of Bush's second term will not end up being a shift rightward of the government through appointments.

Please surprise me with a thoughtful answer delivered with the respect due a fellow American.

Thank you.
 
[quote name='dennis_t'](1) Bush is not a placeholder[/quote]
Tax Cuts
The Iraq War
The War on Terror
DHS
FEMA, cronyism and the Katrina response
John Bolton and other recess appointments
Wolfowitz to the World Bank
"Bring it on"
Warrantless wiretapping
John Roberts and Samuel Alito
Social Security reform
Health Care "savings"

No, he's not a placeholder. I'd be perfectly happy right now if I were living in a country where a placeholder, and not someone who evidently slept through the 80s and didn't learn the lessons, were in charge.

(2) Bush really can afford to launch all sorts of initiatives

Well, he certainly hasn't stopped trying, although he was far more subdued on the health care plans than the previews suggested he would be.

(3) the legacy of Bush's second term will not end up being a shift rightward of the government through appointments.

Meh. We've already passed that exit on the interstate, so it's not an arguable point.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Tax Cuts
The Iraq War
The War on Terror
DHS
FEMA, cronyism and the Katrina response
John Bolton and other recess appointments
Wolfowitz to the World Bank
"Bring it on"
Warrantless wiretapping
John Roberts and Samuel Alito
Social Security reform
Health Care "savings"

No, he's not a placeholder. I'd be perfectly happy right now if I were living in a country where a placeholder, and not someone who evidently slept through the 80s and didn't learn the lessons, were in charge.
[/QUOTE]

I believe you are forgetting Every Child Left Behind, in which he doesnt fund it, expects the state to pay, makes school be only about high stakes testing, and has schools get rid of poor testing kids to increase their meaningless statistics.
 
There is the "ironically named bills era," of course (don't forget the "healthy forests initiative" and the "clean skies act").

This was off the top of my head. That's certainly not the full indictment of Bush's radicalism.
 
I think we have a new record here - usually it takes Bush weeks to back off the crap he spews in the SoTU address. Here we are, though, less than 24 hours after, and the Bush administration is already admitting that the president didn't mean what he said.

Of course, the change might have something to do with this:

So, take your pick: Bush either stood in front of Congress and lied, or he's at the beck and call of OPEC.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Bush either stood in front of Congress and lied, or he's at the beck and call of OPEC.[/QUOTE]

That's about as shocking as the sun coming up in the morning.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It's hard for someone to be that precise, to give an actual amount and date, and not be speaking literally.[/QUOTE]
Bush persevered!

75% is a metaphor for, uh, hmm, I don't know. But, who can forget Weapons of Mass destruction related program activities!? He persevered for that cause, too.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']bmulligan,

You gripe about Dems and lefties automatically arguing points without thinking, and then turn around and do it yourself.

I was obviously speaking of the fact that the deficit is growing, and is expected to grow ad infinitum, making it hard for Bush to really pay for anything new without a tax increase. In fact, he's liable to have to cut services drastically, which will cause holy hell to be raised across the nation.

So rather than automatically jumping on to argue with me using irrelevant facts and ad homeniem insults, how's about you think about the point I'm making and address it directly?

I'll even give you another try right now. Read my original post and argue that (1) Bush is not a placeholder, (2) Bush really can afford to launch all sorts of initiatives and (3) the legacy of Bush's second term will not end up being a shift rightward of the government through appointments.

Please surprise me with a thoughtful answer delivered with the respect due a fellow American.

Thank you.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for a non-incendiary request for an argument. The deficit and debt are not expected to grow ad infinitum. As long as Congress can limit their spending increases, the debt as a percentage of GDP will continue to decline as will the numerical amount of the yearly deficit. Compared to ten years ago, we are paying half the interest on the national debt (about .08 cents on the dollar, compared to .15 cents in 1995, I believe) so this actually does free up money in the budget for programs of the congress' or president's choosing. Granted, with the Social Security crisis looming in the near future, we should be saving every penny and should be cutting programs, not just limiting the rate of spending growth but that should be a whole other topic onto itself.

You won't get an argument from me about cutting spending, but the Dems don't seem to be worried about that at all. They had a planned cheer and ovation when Bush said Social Security reform failed during the SOTU address. At least we know where their priorities aren't.

(Just as an aside, I thought you lefties wanted all these nifty government programs to make the environment safer and our children cleaner, et al.)

Perhaps there are legitimate programs the government should be funding but do I think hydrogen cars is one of them? No. But I don't think giving 20 billion to Boston for the Big Dig is our responsibility either as well as the mountainous pork and pet programs provided care of the US taxpayers.

Frankly, every president is just a place holder, especially lame duck ones - and thank god for it. There's nothing worse than a president pandering to everyone in order to get elected and making policy according to what's popular becuase the people frequently are wrong. We'll usually see the true colors of a politician when he's not running for re-election and just planning a legacy. Unfortunately, our president wants to leave his mark on my right to choose whom I can marry, whose stem cells I can experiment with, and which god I pray to. But at least he's concerned about terrorism and social security when no one else seems to be.

You can say the exact thing about senators and congressmen. I don't consider these people my "leaders" and neither should you, whether republican or democrat. They are temporary representatives, hopefully very temporary. And as far as shifting rightward by appointments, with the exception of meiers, he's done a fine job. I like alito and roberts. The court needs more people who actually read the law and don't rule on what's popular. The people are often wrong about what's good for everyone.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']There's nothing worse than a president pandering to everyone in order to get elected and making policy according to what's popular becuase the people frequently are wrong.[/QUOTE]
We'll tell people what to think, regardless of what they believe.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Thank you for a non-incendiary request for an argument. The deficit and debt are not expected to grow ad infinitum. As long as Congress can limit their spending increases, the debt as a percentage of GDP will continue to decline as will the numerical amount of the yearly deficit. Compared to ten years ago, we are paying half the interest on the national debt (about .08 cents on the dollar, compared to .15 cents in 1995, I believe) so this actually does free up money in the budget for programs of the congress' or president's choosing. Granted, with the Social Security crisis looming in the near future, we should be saving every penny and should be cutting programs, not just limiting the rate of spending growth but that should be a whole other topic onto itself.[/quote]
Right, so as nothing unexpected happens, such as a massive hurricane, or if the president doesn't do something completely insane, like lie to drag us into an unwinnable war, we at least won't go bankrupt TOO quickly. Oh, wait...

You won't get an argument from me about cutting spending, but the Dems don't seem to be worried about that at all. They had a planned cheer and ovation when Bush said Social Security reform failed during the SOTU address. At least we know where their priorities aren't.
Because tacking on another 2 trillion to the nation debt in order to gamble on the stock market would have been a GOOD thing, right?

(Just as an aside, I thought you lefties wanted all these nifty government programs to make the environment safer and our children cleaner, et al.)
Yeah, we just want them from someone who won't just use them as an excuse to give billions to corporations who won't even be required to do anything in return. Bush's plan to promote alternative energy WILL be essentially the same as his plan last year for dealing with our nation's shortage of oil refineries: give a few billion in tax breaks to Exxon, in exchange for a promise to maybe think about considering doing something (they decided against it, BTW.)

There's nothing worse than a president pandering to everyone in order to get elected and making policy according to what's popular becuase the people frequently are wrong.
You are aware of what a democracy is, right?

But at least he's concerned about terrorism and social security when no one else seems to be.
Please: Bush's interests in those topics begins and ends with how he can use them to manipulate the public into giving massive amounts of cash to favored corporations. If Bush was even remotely concerned about terrorism, he'd support programs to better screen our harbors, improve our relationship with the people who live in areas that are the source of terrorism (his failure to do anything to help the people in Palastine is a good part of the reason Hamas won the elections there), and work on getting Bin Laden. Invading an oil-rich country under false pretenses does NOT qualify as protecting us from terrorism.

Similarly, betting a couple trillion dollars on the stock market doesn't do much beyond inflate his buddy's investment portfolios. It does nothing to solve a temporary, extremely small, quite-possibly-not-going-to-happen-anyway shortfall in SS funds 40 years down the line.


And as far as shifting rightward by appointments, with the exception of meiers, he's done a fine job. I like alito and roberts. The court needs more people who actually read the law and don't rule on what's popular. The people are often wrong about what's good for everyone.
Because if we rule on what's popular, the police won't be able to examine 10 year old girls rectums based on flimsy 'what if she has drugs up there?' grounds, and won't be able to shoot people in the back because maybe, possibly, a crime happened somewhere (you can't take chances with those sort of things. If you think there may have been a crime, shoot 'em in the back and let God sort things out, that's what I always say.)
 
[quote name='Drocket']Right, so as nothing unexpected happens, such as a massive hurricane, or if the president doesn't do something completely insane, like lie to drag us into an unwinnable war, we at least won't go bankrupt TOO quickly. Oh, wait...


Because tacking on another 2 trillion to the nation debt in order to gamble on the stock market would have been a GOOD thing, right?


Yeah, we just want them from someone who won't just use them as an excuse to give billions to corporations who won't even be required to do anything in return. Bush's plan to promote alternative energy WILL be essentially the same as his plan last year for dealing with our nation's shortage of oil refineries: give a few billion in tax breaks to Exxon, in exchange for a promise to maybe think about considering doing something (they decided against it, BTW.)


You are aware of what a democracy is, right?


Please: Bush's interests in those topics begins and ends with how he can use them to manipulate the public into giving massive amounts of cash to favored corporations. If Bush was even remotely concerned about terrorism, he'd support programs to better screen our harbors, improve our relationship with the people who live in areas that are the source of terrorism (his failure to do anything to help the people in Palastine is a good part of the reason Hamas won the elections there), and work on getting Bin Laden. Invading an oil-rich country under false pretenses does NOT qualify as protecting us from terrorism.

Similarly, betting a couple trillion dollars on the stock market doesn't do much beyond inflate his buddy's investment portfolios. It does nothing to solve a temporary, extremely small, quite-possibly-not-going-to-happen-anyway shortfall in SS funds 40 years down the line.



Because if we rule on what's popular, the police won't be able to examine 10 year old girls rectums based on flimsy 'what if she has drugs up there?' grounds, and won't be able to shoot people in the back because maybe, possibly, a crime happened somewhere (you can't take chances with those sort of things. If you think there may have been a crime, shoot 'em in the back and let God sort things out, that's what I always say.)[/QUOTE]


You need to turn off the TV and stop subscribing to the local paper. It's destroying your capacity for independent thought.

Oh, yeah, I'm aware of what a democracy is and we are not a democracy, thankfully.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Oh, yeah, I'm aware of what a democracy is and we are not a democracy, thankfully.[/QUOTE]
Gee, really? Last I checked, democracies are voted by the people either directly or through representation (the last part meaning a democratic republic). If you want to think of a direct democracy and democratic republic as two completely different things, you're just splitting hairs and arguing semantics (which essentially bogs conversation down and muddles anything. A common tactics to try and shift attention away from the facts to some sort of nitpick, such as the difference between a state and a state-like territory. Of course, Ad hominem is, as well).

That being said, the US is a democracy. "We the people" is the first line of the constitution. Not "we the government" or "we the executive branch" or "I the president". Let us look at other democratic institutions in the COnstitution, shall we? There's also Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"

I don't feel like digging through the constitution much for the time being (mostly because I Have other work to do).
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']That was dumb on her part. She should have sat there quietly and everytime Dubya mentioned Iraq, all the cameras would have turned to her. The press would have been waiting for her to make a spectacle of herself and she would have gotten a lot of screen time.[/QUOTE]

People used to believe in something called "freedom of speech". Patrick Henry stood in front of the House of Burgesses and yelled "Give me freedom of give me death!"

Can you imagine what would happen if someone stood in front of the modern-day King President George and tried that?

Now the US Capitol Police admit that they "made a mistake". Isn't that convenient - why don't we shut up all dissidents during Presidential speeches, and then if one of the incidents gets alot of media play we can just admit that we went too far... wait a minute that's how it's been for the past 5 years. Hey Bush-haters, get back in the designated "protesting zone".

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/01/sheehan.arrest/index.html
 
I think I may not have made my point clear. I do value freedom of speech and i think the "protest zones" they herd people into are bullshit. But Cindy Sheehan had an opportunity to be the face of the anti-Iraqi War movement Tuesday night. She would have been the cutaway shot whenever Bush mentioned Iraq or the military. That would have undercut a lot of his pandering. If she had gotten up and created a disturbance during the speech, she would have been hauled away and treated like the kook the right wants to make her out to be.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I think I may not have made my point clear. I do value freedom of speech and i think the "protest zones" they herd people into are bullshit. But Cindy Sheehan had an opportunity to be the face of the anti-Iraqi War movement Tuesday night. She would have been the cutaway shot whenever Bush mentioned Iraq or the military. That would have undercut a lot of his pandering. If she had gotten up and created a disturbance during the speech, she would have been hauled away and treated like the kook the right wants to make her out to be.[/QUOTE]

You're missing the point that two people with differing points of view were taken out of the SOTU, for doing the same thing - wearing clothing.

I believe the right wing has done an excellent job portraying her as unamerican and a loon (among other epithets). What's excellent about kicking out Mrs. Young as well comes in the fact that she was not arrested, so the mistreatment of Shehan is far clearer. To think, if she had been the only one escorted out, she'd be easier to cast as a radical, a nutcase, and a miscreant than if two people were escorted out and treated differently! Thanks for getting the boot, Mrs. Young! You're helping the cause!
 
I don't have a problem with a policy of no political t-shirts at the SOTU speaches otherwise every invited guest will be pimping for Goldenpalace.com. As an event, I think the SOTU calls for a little decorum.

Now had they not evicted Mrs. Young as well, I would be more upset. She should have received the same treatment as Sheehan. No difference.

Having said that, I completely disagree with Bush's regular policy or excluding all dissent from his normal speaches. These are not campaign stops. He is the President for the entire country (sadly) and he should allow dissenting opinions in the audience.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Thank you for a non-incendiary request for an argument. The deficit and debt are not expected to grow ad infinitum. As long as Congress can limit their spending increases, the debt as a percentage of GDP will continue to decline as will the numerical amount of the yearly deficit. Compared to ten years ago, we are paying half the interest on the national debt (about .08 cents on the dollar, compared to .15 cents in 1995, I believe) so this actually does free up money in the budget for programs of the congress' or president's choosing. Granted, with the Social Security crisis looming in the near future, we should be saving every penny and should be cutting programs, not just limiting the rate of spending growth but that should be a whole other topic onto itself.[/QUOTE]

Two problems with this argument:

(1) At the beginning of Bush's term there WASN'T a national debt. Therefore, there was no interest being paid. We'd paid the national mortgage. Clinton had, through fiscally conservative policies, eliminated the debt.
Bush put us back in debt through tax cuts, spending, and, later, a certain ill-advised war.

(2) Bush has shown no interest in limiting Congressional spending. He's exercised his veto exactly zero times, despite some truly impressive pork packages that have reached his desk. The Republicans are in complete charge of the purse strings, and are spending like drunken sailors.

[quote name='bmulligan']Unfortunately, our president wants to leave his mark on my right to choose whom I can marry, whose stem cells I can experiment with, and which god I pray to. But at least he's concerned about terrorism and social security when no one else seems to be.[/QUOTE]

Here's where I think Bush has been very successful at bamboozling a large section of the population. I think just about EVERYONE is concerned about terrorism and social security, bmulligan. But through the noise machine, you and many good-meaning folks like yourself believe that only Bush cares, and anyone who disagrees with his proposed solutions don't care about the problems.

Just think about that: you are saying that folks like me who disagree with you politically really don't care if we are attacked again by terrorists, and really don't care if Social Security is around when we get old. Do you really believe that? Honestly? If you do, let me disabuse you of the notion -- it ain't true at all.

However, I think Bush's ideas have been disasterously wrong-headed. I don't think gutting Social Security is the means by which to save it. I don't believe attacking a country with no terrorist ties while allowing bin Laden to continue to spew his bile is the way to go about it. I think he's led the country way down the wrong path.

I think you save Social Security by balancing the budget -- as it was when Bush took office -- and use the surpluses to shore up the program. (This is essentially Gore's much-derided lockbox, but guess what -- it would have worked, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.)

And I think you fight terrorism by treating it like the law-enforcement issue it is, tracking down malefactors using every legal means at our disposal. Terrorism is a means -- not a political state -- so you can't win a war against it. That's like saying you can win a war on car theft or a war on burglary. But you can minimize the number of instances by tracking down, locking up or keeping an eye on those most likely to commit terrorism. (And it's a hell of a lot more cost-effective than previously noted war on said non-terrorist-linked country.)

Finally, thank you for your thoughtful response. I had hoped you had it in you, bmulligan, and I hope we can continue exchanging ideas rather than childish insults.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Two problems with this argument:

(1) At the beginning of Bush's term there WASN'T a national debt. Therefore, there was no interest being paid. We'd paid the national mortgage. Clinton had, through fiscally conservative policies, eliminated the debt. [/QUOTE]

National Debt Through the Clinton Years.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

So much for that argument.

http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Two problems with this argument:

(1) At the beginning of Bush's term there WASN'T a national debt. Therefore, there was no interest being paid. We'd paid the national mortgage. Clinton had, through fiscally conservative policies, eliminated the debt.
Bush put us back in debt through tax cuts, spending, and, later, a certain ill-advised war.
[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but that's factually incorrect.

From debtclock.com
inflation.gif


There's been a national debit since, well, forever. I think you mean Clinton's BUDGET surplus compared to Bush's deficit spending.
 
I think dennis was making the common mistake of confusing "national deficit" and "national debt," cheese. While we had a budget surplus the last few years of Clinton, the debt never went down, that much is certain. Look at the bars around 2000; where it levels off and dips for two years suggests not only stagnation, but negative growth of the debt (though corrected for inflation, it suggests, falsely, that some of the debt was paid off for those years).

OTOH, the philosophy of individuals the last few years of Clinton is peculiar, as well as problematic. It suggested a complete and total denial of responsibility for paying off the national debt (and flows perfectly with Cheney's assertion that "deficits don't matter). People naturally assumed that, rather than government being run more efficiently (not an easy thing to prove, and not something I will even begin to defend) or the economy was robust enough as to naturally increase the government's revenue without taking more money from people (the idea of trickle down economics suggests this, that cutting taxes increases growth, which thus triggers a stronger economy which ultimately leads to greater tax revenue than prior to the tax cuts), the public believed themselves as being gouged by the government. Bush's appeal was in redistributing the tax surplus in the form of his infamous $300 checks during the 2000 election.

What's troubling about this (and what jives with Cheney's assertion) is that the public basically said "fuck the debt, we'll pay it later." The public consciously decided that instant gratification in the form of $300 was preferrable to helping the next few generations of their whelps pay off the debt. We, as a nation, said "let the goddamn kids take care of it," and had no interest in paying off part and parcel of our individual $25K or so liability in the debt.

But, hey, that's 3/4 of an Xbox 360; of course you want it now, right? :roll:
 
My apologies for the error. To quote a great man: Deeeeer-hey!

myke is correct, and he goes on to make the point I wanted to make better than I actually did. Which does absolutely nothing to make me look like less of a jackass.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think dennis was making the common mistake of confusing "national deficit" and "national debt," cheese. While we had a budget surplus the last few years of Clinton, the debt never went down, that much is certain. Look at the bars around 2000; where it levels off and dips for two years suggests not only stagnation, but negative growth of the debt (though corrected for inflation, it suggests, falsely, that some of the debt was paid off for those years).[/quote]
I really don't know what you're talking about here. As the chart clearly shows, there WAS a (small) decrease in the national debt the last 2 years of Clinton's term. It was, of course, a small decrease simply because the national debt is so huge - a few billion surplus for a couple of years isn't going to make much of a dent in it. Its like getting a couple hundred for your birthday and using it towards your $200,000 morgage - its a nice step that'll be useful in the long term, but realistically, compared to the size of your morgage, its chump change. In order to make a meaningful dent, you have to keep it up for a few years. If Clinton's surplus has been allowed to continue, instead of being flushed down the toilet on a tax cut for Paris Hilton, we'd be making some real progress on the debt at this point. To expect to make a meaningful dent in a $6 TRILLION dollar debt in just a couple of years, though...
 
The debt in that chart is interpreted according to a constant dollar amount. Look right around 1980, where the national debt was pretty close to being precisely $2T. In 1980 it wasn't that, but the relative value of $2T in the year 2000. I'll have to get back to you about the actual values of the debt, but I don't believe it went down in the last few years of Clinton. Instead, since inflation goes up over time, and the size of the debt stayed the same for several years, comparing the value from time 1 to time 2 might artificially suggest that, relative to each other, the debt has gone down. However, it may have just been that, since the numerical value of the debt stayed the same, it's value relative to 2000 dollars changes over time.

If the debt was $2T in 1970 and $2T in 2000, there would be no change over time, but you can understand how those are two different values, right? In 2000 dollars, the size of the debt in 1970 would be *far* larger than the size of the debt in 2000. I think the fact that the values are clustered together so closely make it confusing to consider.

Of course, if I weren't lazy I could check out the congressional budget office's data on national debt. If someone else isn't lazy, could you check out the absolute values for the years around 2000?
 
bread's done
Back
Top