First off, thank you to everyone who came out to the Chatroom room last night and made our live discussion of the State of the Union Address successful! That was lots of fun. We'll have to do it again soon

So what did you all think of President Bush's speech last night?

For easy quoting convenience, here is the FULL TEXT of his speech.

Overall, not a bad speech.

But I would have been happy if he had talked about cutting governemt spending, which is now at an all time high.

And someone tell me where it says in the constitution how the federal governemt can sieze taxpayers money and spend it on medical treatment programs in Africa?

First... I wasn't too impressed with him touting his "tough new laws" against corporate crime. It is common knowledge that after the laws were passed, the funding wasn't provided for the SEC to be able to enforce them. It was all talk then, and it is all talk now. Next, there was the "no child left behind" program, in which he created new standards for education, didn't approve any additional funding, and in fact, slashed the funding that had already been approved for education under the Clinton administration. He has no business passing either of these issues off as any great success, because in reality, they're two of his major failings.

That large, Earth-shaking thud you heard during the speech was every Democrat in the country falling on the floor when he said that he would be funding R&D for hydrogen fuel cell technology. This was an obvious political maneuver designed to make him look a little less than the oil tycoon that he is. I believe that this will go the way of education and corporate crime and be swept under the rug. I don't foresee any funding for this program, and it will become yet another example of how the Bush administration is all talk and no action.

Funding for any program (SEC, Hydrogen research, education, etc.) that any president proposes is done by Congress. The president can propose an amount of money, but the actual funding is not within his realm of activity. It has also been decided (as I recall during the Nixon Administration) by the Supreme Court that if Congress allocates a certain amount of money, the president can't 'not' spend it. I think Nixon tried that.

I don't have a problem with his wanting to help Africa with the AIDS epidemic. Helping with the epidemic there might keep it from becoming an epidemic here. Had he ignored this - well, there are those amongst us who would have complained about that.

He did discuss cutting spending - it's called in Washington-speak - keeping increases in line. He mentioned not allowing the increases to exceed 4%. Again, this is his wish - but it is Congress who makes that decision.

In the past, again in Washington-speak, when one party (often the Republicans) decides to 'cut the proposed increase' the other party (often the Democrats) calls this a 'cut.' Only in Washington is a decrease in an increase called a cut.

What did I think of the speech? Yes, I liked it. I thought he has shown consistency. This is new in Washington.

Overall, I thought the speech was pretty good. He spoke with conviction, purpose, and clarity. As a politician, he spoke about issues that concerned the left and the right. I'm glad that he addressed domestic issues first, before talking about foreign issues. Also, good thing he's got a Republican majority, cause otherwise there'd be much less applause with all the very conservative issues that he presented (faith based initiative, anti-abortion, getting rid of dividend taxation, and human cloning).

I'm also glad that he's pushing for medical liability reform in order to address health costs. I see that also as a major reason for the high medical costs. The typical liberal response would be, let's just give medicare recipients more money.

He made his case pretty clear on Iraq. Though, personally, I don't see it as a conclusive argument to go to war against Iraq. The administration position is, "Iraq has not proved that it DOES NOT have WMD." And the anti-war position is, "The US has not proved that Iraq HAS WMD." It seems more a stalemate to me.

And about tax cuts, though I'm fully supportive of having some of my money back, without a cut in government spending, it doesn't mean much long term. Sometime down the line, there'll have to be a tax hike to pay for the government debt.

One thing I found interesting, while sifting through the usual blah blah script, was Bush's use of "Israel and Palestine," instead of "Israel and the Palestinians." Kind of reminds me of Clancy's Jack Ryan who blundered in a press conference and referred to China and Taiwan as "the two Chinas."

Was this a blunder, or a provocation? I don't think the Israeli government will be too happy with it, whatever it was...

I for one, appreciated his straightforwardness. He didn't dance around anything, or leave you wondering where he stands on the issues he addressed. Unlike other recent Presidents.

Banning partial birth abortions
Limiting medical lawsuits
Outlawing human cloneing (I consider this seperate from stem cell research)

I also appreciated what he said about Iraq. Granted, he didn't exactly hold up a smoking gun, but what he said hasn't been said yet. I will certainly look forward to hearing what Colin Powel has to say next week.

To thumbs up

--cheers

Probably means that the Pres supports a Palestinean state.....

It was so boring I fell asleep right after. But the couple of things that I found interesting were:

His sudden interest in AIDS in Africa. This must be the caring conservative he professes to be. Will it be like 'no child left behind' where he made all the plans and then refused the funding? So, here is the charity bit.

And, being that I work in the insurance industry I find it very interesting that he wants to move seniors into privatitized HMO's so they can get drug coverage. BAHHAHHAA. The company I work for, which is if not the biggest is one of the top two, had to pull out of almost ALL of their senior markets across the country because it brought us to the brink of bankrupcy. So, it may sound good on paper but if there are no plans for them to join it won't work.

I didn't see it all and doubt there was anything new. But I'm sure he will have all that proof for us regarding on Feb 5TH. which is what he's been telling us for a year now but this time I'm sure he has something new.

Did anyone take a look at the speech link I provided above? I found it rather amusing that the transcriptionist chose (or was told) to note each instance of applause

Also, if you scroll down to the bottom of that same page there is a link to make it printer friendly. I'm printing my copy now to dissect on lunch (any excuse to get outside on a day like today ).

Yeah, they actually make a big deal out of the number of times the audience applauds. I remember one year, the talking heads compared the applause Clinton got to the one he got the year before. I think it's a little much.....

Danya: I think General Motors is the largest corp in the world. Is that who you work for?

--cheers

Why do you find it amusing??

Actually, I appreciate those notations being there. I was not able to watch the broadcast last night, so I just simply read the transcript this morning. And the notes communicated to me when the congressmen chose to respond, which I thought was quite informative. For instance, there were a lot of applause during his talk about domestic issues. But there were less applause during the talk about Iraq.

Well, about the Hydrogen...I heard on a radio show that Bush has already promised funding for this research. Since the technology to acquire the Hydrogen isn't readily available, he has offered $10M to any scientist or group of scientists who can find a feasable way to acquire it. The gentleman who was talking about it was working on an idea himself, and that this "prize" was already promised. Therefore, don't assume that the President is full of it when you don't know the facts.

As for the entire speech, all in all it wasn't so shabby. It had me cheering at times, rollng my eyes at others.

Why is Bush so liberal sometimes? AIDS in Africa??? My tax money doesn't belong in Africa.

[quote=Digital Patriot,Jan 29 2003, 11:07 AM] [QUOTE=Jaime,Jan 29 2003, 11:51 AM] Danya: I think General Motors is the largest corp in the world. Is that who you work for?

--cheers [/quote]
LOL. When did General Motors join the health insurance business?

Bush spent just a few minutes speaking of what he had "accomplished." He actually accomplished none of the things he spoke of. He has no record, only an agenda.

"An agenda is the measures you enact: education reform, a Homeland Security department, tax relief, corporate oversight reform. A record is what those measures are suppose to accomplish: lifting public schools, protecting the country, ending the recession, improving corporate integrity. By inserting these hypothetical achievements at the beginning of each sentence about his agenda, Bush made them sound real. They aren't. His education bill remains unfunded. The corporate reforms he signed were watered down. The first Secretary of Homeland Security was sworn in FOUR DAYS AGO. And the economy is still a wreck.

What Bush said of Saddam's disarmament record could equally be said of Bush's domestic record. He has given no evidence of progress. He must have much to hide." (The Statae Of The Union Is Unmentionable---Wm. Saletan)

Im tired of hearing that it's Congress who delivers the money. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. The fact is that Bush is taking credit for accomplishments that haven't even happened.

Madtown

Madtown - I suggest you write to your Representative and tell him/her how you want these programs funded. That would be a positive action.

As I recall, President Bush (once it was decided to go ahead with the Dept. of Homeland Security) wanted it up and running by last Sept. 11th. However, the Democrats in the Senate delayed action because of their insistence on how federal employees be unionized. In my opinion, that cost them dearly in the election in November. Senator Daschle acknowledged that.

So the delay for setting up that Dept. was not the President's fault.

Basheva...Thanks so much for the suggestion, but this isn't about funding. It's about Bush taking credit for his record of accomplishments, which so far is only a record of his agenda.

Madtown

A few facts Bush forgot t mention in his speech.

The stock market is in the toilet

The economy is going nowhere

Unemployment is up

The deficit is out of control


Madtown

He also forgot to mention how he plans to fund or carry out the 'liberation' of Iraq.

As I recall, the economy, education, unemployment and the deficit were addressed.

He talked about his plans (though you may not agree with them) for boosting the economy through tax cuts and how he feels this will boost demand and investment and therefore jobs. He addressed the deficit by mentioning that the federal budget spending should not rise beyond 4%.

If he had said: "The economy/stock market is in the toilet, education is a disgrace,"...etc., you would have replied: "Don't tell me what I already know - tell me what your plans are." That is precisely what he did - he gave you his plans (though you may not agree with them).

I don't think I want him to discuss in detail how he plans to liberate Iraq. If it involves the military operations - those are plans that are never discussed in public.

But, he did make it clear that Iraq could put the military option out of the picture any time it chooses to do so.

The budget battles of the past decades have been won by the president. CLinton decisively beat congress when push came to shove, Reagan did the same. So we can say the technical funding of programs happens in Congress but it seems in reality a budget doesn't happen if a president doesn't want it.

If Bush placed the highest priority on organizing Homeland Defense and did not try to refashion government in his image at the same time he could have had a Department of Homeland Defense in place and running long ago.

As for the deficit, cutting taxes to increase revenue is an awfully suspect idea. Reagan's version piled up the majority of our present debt. Bush's version is going to send more bills ahead to the next democratic president to deal with. Why do the Republican presidents get to blame everything on tax and spend liberal programs and them propose a bunch of new spending programs along with major spending increases on defense and Medicare? This is reckless fiscal policy and our social security system will be the victim of it.

Cutting taxes and providing a whole new range of spending programs is not honest government it is vote mongering.

Then it's impossible to know if getting rid of Saddam is a good idea or not. How can you compare the present leadership in Iraq to an unknown future leadership? Just like his fiscal plans his war plans are just as irresponsible.

As I understand it, the parameters President Bush wanted for some of the federal employees at the new Dept. already existed in similar agencies (agencies dealing with the same types of sensitive areas as intelligence and covert operations). It was Senator Daschle and his caucus that wanted to change it and extend the 'protections' that the ordinary federal worker such as in Dept. of Labor, has to these sensitive areas.

My husband (retired) headed a lab for secret R & D for the federal government. Had he done anything amiss, he could have been removed immediately to another less sensitive area. Actual dismissal would have taken a longer process - but because the area in which he was employed was sensitive, his removal would have been immediate. It was this that President Bush was seeking to preserve in the sensitive areas of the new Dept. of Homeland Security. It was nothing new, merely a continuation.

This is an important issue and it was worth waiting for to resolve it before the Dept. was created. And the electorate spoke.

I thought Saint Clinton balanced the budget, and piled up a massive surplus? That wasn't just an agenda was it?


Most respected US economists would disagree with you.

Cutting taxes IS honest government, a whole new range of spending programs is NOT.

The message I recall hearing was that the president wanted the authority to hire and fire all of the employees in the new department as he saw fit. Of course security programs would have to be followed and without looking into it I find it nearly impossible to belive that the Dems were arguing if an employee was protected by civil service or union rules then he would have to be granted a security clearance on tenure.

Just to build on Donttread's point.

JFK made the statement in one of his State of the Union addresses that same theory. That cutting taxes, in time will increase revenue by creating more jobs thus more Americans working and paying into taxes.

Sleeper

No, I don't think the issue was security clearance on tenure. In fact, employees with security clearances are constantly checked at regular intervals. My husband's clearance was regularly checked - and quite in depth too for almost 30 years.

As we all know, firing a federal employee is almost impossible - well, at least extremely difficult and takes a long time with a great deal of verification. Most of the time the department involved simply hasn't the time or energy to do this, so the employee is left where he/she is or if at all possible moved to a similar job description. But the move, as I understand it, has to be lateral. This leaves little room for action. Even this can, and is, contested by the employee with the force of the union behind him/her.

I don't think that President Bush has any interest in (or the time for) walking around the new department and saying "ok - you're in and you're out."

There is a great deal of contract employee hiring for just this reason. If the contract employee is not suitable, he or she can immediately be dismissed. This is a situation that most people in the work force face. It's not a new idea. Your work is not satisfactory - well, you're out. This is crucial in sensitive areas.

Senator Daschle and the Democratic caucus in the Senate were adamant about keeping the full protections of civil service in the new department.

That's right! So, he didn't talk about the state of the union because the state of the union is nothing to talk about.

He told us what his plans are all right, but he tried to pass them off as "accomplishments."

He's been in office 2 years, not 2 wks, but he's still talking plans and promises. He's accomplished nothing.


Madtown

Well, let's see.....


He got passed the Education Bill

and the Tax bill to lower Taxes

and there was the Homeland Security Act

and the Patriot Act

Air Safety Act

but you don't have to take my word for it - here is a link to major legislation that was passed (and the President signed) in the legislative session of Congress in 2001:

Legislative Acts Passed in 2001

Here's another:

2001-2002

(I picked these two representatives at random - they were the first ones to come up in Google - I wasn't interested in the congressmen, but in what legislation passed and their site listed that information.)


I am not saying I or you agree with all these acts - or that they have been fully implemented, or that they are as wonderful as we would like them to be - but they have been passed. And that's a start. No one expects that legislation is passed - and one day/month/year later - abra kadabra - it's all fixed up. It takes time just to get geared up. But getting the legislation passed is where the President's leadership comes in.

I wouldn't call the Patriot act an accomplishment. But there are plenty of threads I've posted to regarding that already. Ditto for what little we know about the Homeland Security Act. These have all been little more than an attack on our civil liberties. Nothing to be cheered about.

And he may have come up with the Education Bill but failed to fund it.

Air Safety Act sounds dubious coming from Bush but I'll have to look it up.

So, that leaves the tax cut which is controversial as well.

Basheva, I can't stop myself.

Of course, the president cannot actually pass any laws that is the responsibility of Congress.

Danya - I posted in those links at 1:46 a.m. and your response was at 1:50 a.m. - you have read those links already? You are a much faster reader than I am.

My post above did not say that we all agree with the acts passed - merely that things were done/accomplished/passed.

Eeyore - that I have been the cause of so much emotion in you - gives me pleasure.



LOL

He's accomplished all that and:

The stock market's still in the toilet

The economy is still going nowhere

Unemployment is still up

The deficit is still out of control.

"Remember those State of the Union speeches Bill Clinton gave? The guy couldn't stop quoting happy numbers. That's one problem Bush doesn't have."

Madtown

I also remember the Visa bill came up on Clinton's "credit card" economy when Bush took office.


Darcaine

2 things:

1. The Abortion statement: WHOA NELLIE!! He touched THE HOTTEST TOPIC A POLITICIAN COULD TOUCH! When he said "I support the ban on partial birth abortions" (or something of that nature), i almost choked on my 7-up (it came out of my nose instead)

2. Aids funds in Africa: Very nice. That'll score him big points in the UN Aids Comittee

Near the end, the camera zoomed in on Edward Kennedy, & it looked like he was ASLEEP!!

I remember President Clinton (notice I still give him the respect of his title) giving his State of the Union speeches - all - all too well.

Many of those 'happy numbers' he quoted were the result of the Republican House force feeding him to balance the budget.

Just as I say that you can't blame the President (any president) for underfunding or over funding - he also can't take all the credit for the 'happy numbers.'

It works both ways.

President Bush has put an economic "stimulus" package on the table, but his opponents are refusing to pass it. He has included in it extending unemployment benefits (which I disagree with) for another 13 weeks. He has proposed an across the board tax cut, as well as eliminating the tax on dividends which would help the stock market.
Also, the stock market is in the toilet because of many factors. It is recovering from the orgy we all enjoyed (which was in many cases unsound, dotcom mania, etc) in the 90's, back to a reasonable level. Companies are laying many of the people off they hired during that period, so the economy is in a down turn, profits and revenue are down, and in turn the values of stocks are down as well. I fail to see how that is any fault of Bush's. Corporate corruption scandals have decreased investor confidence as well.
We also had Sept. 11 and then the resulting war in Afghanistan and now the possible military action in Iraq. Logic says if there is a recession, i.e. less money is coming in, and we are having to spend more money on military action then deficits will increase.
You state all of these things as if to say Bush needs to do something about them, and right now. I believe he is trying to. I for one would appreciate another tax cut and for my dividend taxes to be cut. That would mean more re invested into my 401k, and hence, more money into the stock market. I am getting so tired of opponents claiming that Bush's tax cut will only help "the rich." It would certainly help me out, and I am far from rich.
As for Clinton's happy quotes, nothing personally against him, but anybody can stand up and talk about how great things are. I think it is much harder to face many differnt problems and actually propose solutions to them.

Edited to attribute quotation to proper member - J

Basheva,

I didn't read the links because I was already familiar with all of them except the Air Safety one. I do pay attention as Bush goes along.

I didn't pay much attention to the applause, but I did note that, this year, we were only treated to twenty-three smug, self-satisfied smirks (I didn't count the ones as he was glad-handing his way to the podium).

Overall, I thought the whole thing was pretty lackluster. Sort of like SOTU '02 Lite. Same tax cut (with same misleading figures), same vague Medicare reform, same "compassionate" budgetary proposals (all of which will be reversed by Congressional Republicans), and - big finale - same preemptive war-mongering.

The only difference really was that this year, at least, he defined evil rather than just indiscriminately applying the term to everyone who bothers him. He sounded defensive, if not bordering on the apologetic. I took that as a good sign.

The only thing of substance to come up during the course of it was the trailer for Powell's Feb. 5 UNSC address. Otherwise, it was a fifty-nine minute yawn.

All I know is, the country was in good shape when Clinton was president and he gets the credit, including the happy numbers.

A good president will work with congress and get the funding he needs for his programs. You know, the way Clinton did.

Madtown

[quote=stotty203,Jan 30 2003, 12:33 PM] [/QUOTE]
President Bush has put an economic "stimulus" package on the table [/quote]
Bush's stimulus package? Is it an economy stimulant that allows taxpayers to keep thier money OR is it a budget deficit stimulant aimed at reliving rich people from paying their fair share of taxes? Sure Stotty, it'll help you out a bit....have to give the little guy something to cover up what the stimulus package is really all about.

You people try to take credit for all of Clinton's success, while making excuses for Bush's failures.

Bush is proposing solutions, but what has he actually ACCOMPLISHED? Not much. Usually, a state of the union address is about RESULTS.

Madtown

No the camera zoomed on Kennedy and I thought it was Jabba the Hut!

Darcaine

Bush's speech was enough to put anybody to sleep!

Madtown

If that was the case, why was everyone awake except for Eddie

I didn't see close-ups of everyone at that stage - only Kennedy. Whose coverage were you watching?

If, indeed, he was sleeeping, he'd get my vote - that reaction would certainly be representative of my opinion.

I am NEVER one to quickly come to the defense of Senator Kennedy, but I will this once. He was taking notes most of the time.

We changed channels between Fox and C-Span during the speech. In shot I saw, Fox caught Kennedy with his head down but didn't pan back so you could see that he had paper and pen and was scribbling something down. It was C-Span who had the better camera angle by which I could see what he was actually doing.

I had heard somewhere, that all of the Congressmen/Women and Senators had pocket sized copies of the Constitution with them.
Anyone know if thats true, and why they would have them?

I always carry my pocket Constitution with me. I would hope that all our Senators and Reps would also.

We ALL should, I was just curious if that was a tradition with the SOTU Address.