Comments about the State of the Union Speech.

[bmulligan]

[quote name='dennis_t'](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]

Just quoted for posterity. You took the subsequent schooling with grace.

(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.

You're not telling anything I don't already know. I'll say again, You won't find a fight with me on this. I'm not a republican, nor a Bush supporter. You missed the part in my reply when I said we should be saving our pennies for the coming Social security crisis. A crisis, incidentally, the democrats say is non-existent.

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.

So, if a democrat claims to care about an issue we should believe them becuase they are genuine in their emotions, but when a rebublican 'claims' to care, it's all bullshit. I get it now.

These two issues are, in a nutshell, the only issues where I agree with Bush 100%. The islamic american killing facists must die and SS must be fixed before it bankrupts us. Unfortunately, they aren't advertised as important by democrats. John Kerry telling me during the presidental campaig "I will tell them that they will lose, and we will win" was an oscar winning performance of insencerity. And I can only count on one hand the number of democrats who actually take these two issues as the #1 and #2 priorities of our country.

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.

Then you need to tell your representatives that. I believe you are in the minority in the democratic fold. Many may 'care', but few are willing to do something about it. There's a big difference there. It's the difference between leading and following, i.e., making decisions or waiting to see what happens by indecision.

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 independant accounts was wrong too. But Bush was the only one offering a solution while all the democrats have the luxury of sitting back and criticizing any bush plan without coming up with a solution of their own. In fact, the media soundbyte blitz spearheaded by the democratic leadership was that there isn't even a problem with SS. It's something he alluded to during the SOTU to remind people of the coming danger which many on the left of the aisle still refuse to admit.

 

[dennis_t]

[quote name='bmulligan']You missed the part in my reply when I said we should be saving our pennies for the coming Social security crisis. A crisis, incidentally, the democrats say is non-existent.

If that were true, bmulligan, then what was all that talk of Gore's about preserving some of the budget surplus in a "lockbox" to save Social Security?

It is acknowledged that Social Security needs shoring up. But Bush sold the system as being on the edge of collapse by playing with the numbers in such ways as extending the projection horizon out to infinity. He did this to scare people into supporting his proposal, which essentially would have gutted Social Security.

Not buying Bush's line of bullshit is not the same as saying the problem is non-existent. And quite frankly, that's one of the things I find so distasteful about his administration -- rather than debating facts, like we are doing here, they would rather scare the hell out of you and libel those who disagree as un-American.


[quote name='bmulligan']So, if a democrat claims to care about an issue we should believe them becuase they are genuine in their emotions, but when a rebublican 'claims' to care, it's all bullshit. I get it now.

I said no such thing and have no idea where you came up with this, bmulligan. When I said EVERYONE cares, I meant just that. And this is the problem with Bush -- he's polarized the country to the point where when I say EVERYONE, you automatically assume I mean only the Democratic EVERYONEs.

And before you say the Democrats are equally at fault, consider this -- the Republicans hold total control over the reins of power, and yet continue to attack the loyal opposition every chance they get. Wouldn't responsible wielders of power do what I did earlier in this thread, and admit mistakes when they occur rather than attacking those who raise the mistakes? This is the polarization I speak of. You can't have an honest political debate in this country because the side in power consistently demonizes the opposition.

[quote name='bmulligan']These two issues are, in a nutshell, the only issues where I agree with Bush 100%. The islamic american killing facists must die and SS must be fixed before it bankrupts us. Unfortunately, they aren't advertised as important by democrats. John Kerry telling me during the presidental campaig "I will tell them that they will lose, and we will win" was an oscar winning performance of insencerity. And I can only count on one hand the number of democrats who actually take these two issues as the #1 and #2 priorities of our country.

[quote name='bmulligan']Then you need to tell your representatives that. I believe you are in the minority in the democratic fold. Many may 'care', but few are willing to do something about it. There's a big difference there. It's the difference between leading and following, i.e., making decisions or waiting to see what happens by indecision.

Now please take this a step further and tell me if you think Bush has taken the appropriate actions necessary to (1) kill the islamic american fascists and (2) fix Social Security.

Because from what I can tell, he's set us years behind on the fight against terrorism by invading a country with no terrorist ties and no weapons of mass destruction, thus bleeding resources away from actually dealing with the true threat.

As far as Social Security, as said before, Bush didn't propose to fix the system, he proposed gutting it in place of a market-driven scheme that would not have provided the same level of ironclad security that is in place today.

So basically, Bush's actions on your two highest points of concern have been completely counter to what would actually solve the problem.

Sometimes action isn't enough. A little thought is required first.

 

[elprincipe]

Two notes for two different subjects in this thread.

1. There has been for a long time a standing policy of no political apparel in the visitor galleries of the House and Senate. Having worked in the Capitol on the Senate side, I know this for a fact. Even on another day Sheehan would have been refused admission. I don't know the exact details of her arrest, but no way was she going in with a political t-shirt. People can't even wear political buttons. In the Senate gallery (I think also the House) you aren't even allowed to applaud or boo what people are saying in the interests of free debate.

2. I don't think Clinton ever really ran a surplus. IIRC the "surpluses" he ran were due solely to the government raiding Social Security's surplus for those years and using it as general funds.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='elprincipe']2. I don't think Clinton ever really ran a surplus. IIRC the "surpluses" he ran were due solely to the government raiding Social Security's surplus for those years and using it as general funds.[/QUOTE]

So, the "surplus" was that he broke even, and didn't have to beg SSA for their money in return for yet another IOU? Given the annual trends of expenditures far exceeding budgets and SSA funds, if what you say is true, that's still an impressive feat - breaking even *is* a "balanced budget," after all. I need to get my ass over to the CBO website to sort that out soon.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='mykevermin']So, the "surplus" was that he broke even, and didn't have to beg SSA for their money in return for yet another IOU? Given the annual trends of expenditures far exceeding budgets and SSA funds, if what you say is true, that's still an impressive feat - breaking even *is* a "balanced budget," after all. I need to get my ass over to the CBO website to sort that out soon.[/QUOTE]

Don't get me wrong, it was a tremendous feat and it happened because of a booming economy and not because of any sort of "restraint" shown by Congress. My point was more that even with the incredible increase in money coming into the government during that time they still couldn't start repaying the debt without borrowing the money from Social Security.

 

[mykevermin]

Well, I'll get my duff over to CBO to see if I can find out if that was the case or not for those few years.