Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
I tuned in about 13 minutes late because I was on a call at work, but I will say that I was impressed from what I heard. I particularly like the idea behind the health care tax breaks, though I don't think $7500 is quite enough - it should be $12.5K - $15K for families and probably $9K for individuals. Ideally, a family with insurance would not be taxed on their first $37K, or so.
He did make an effort to reach across the aisle, but I wonder how much of this is lip service. I hope his idea of bi-partisanship isn't the Dem Congress making all the concessions and compromises to the WH. That is what history suggests, but hopefully he does wish to mend fences.
One thing I will note is that this speech would have been more relevant if the past 6 years of Congress were Dems and the incoming Congress were Reps. Why? Because of all the things he cited with what has been wrong with the budget and earmarks and all other kinds of things. It's not like he was too hamstrung over the past 6 years to push the initiatives he outlined tonight. He has had carte blanche and he could have gotten whatever he wanted through Congress all this time.
When he spoke about spending people's money wisely and the Federal Government's thirst for spending (or however he termed it), I almost swallowed my tongue! It's HIS spending that got us where we are yet he did not acknowledge that nor apologize for it.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of global climate change and the need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. His reasons for the need to reduce that dependency were spot on (hostile regimes, manipulating markets, etc...). I question whether 20% is enough of a reduction, but it's definitely an idea to a step in the right direction ('idea' because I don't exactly see how he would put that in motion).
Acknowledging global crises such as Darfur and AIDS in Africa and Belarus and all the other hot spots was definitely positive. I hope we can as a nation have an impact on major humanitarian issues and I hope the commitment to that is legitimate.
Investing in R&D for alternative and clean fuel sources is an EXCELLENT idea. What the pro-oil people fail to realize is that this is a market that they can pioneer! Why not shift company focus from strictly being an oil company to the more broader idea of being an energy company? Think about it - Exxon-Mobil Energy Co, for example. However, if they don't take the lead, it opens up a whole new segment, no, a whole new industry that will provide vast numbers of jobs for our economy. I hope they do set in motion a way to reduce roadblocks to these technological developments and to help subsidize this burgeoning industry.
I won't get into the Iraq segment of his speech, but I will acknowledge that he outlined his thought process adequately. I just don't see how 150K troops is going to do now what it couldn't back in November 2005, especially considering how much worse the conditions are now compared to then. If he really was going to defy everyone in the world and actually escalate the war, he should have gone balls out and sent an additional 200K+ servicepeople over. Instead, he defies everyone and sends, honestly, a negligible amount of troops.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
I tuned in about 13 minutes late because I was on a call at work, but I will say that I was impressed from what I heard. I particularly like the idea behind the health care tax breaks, though I don't think $7500 is quite enough - it should be $12.5K - $15K for families and probably $9K for individuals. Ideally, a family with insurance would not be taxed on their first $37K, or so.
He did make an effort to reach across the aisle, but I wonder how much of this is lip service. I hope his idea of bi-partisanship isn't the Dem Congress making all the concessions and compromises to the WH. That is what history suggests, but hopefully he does wish to mend fences.
One thing I will note is that this speech would have been more relevant if the past 6 years of Congress were Dems and the incoming Congress were Reps. Why? Because of all the things he cited with what has been wrong with the budget and earmarks and all other kinds of things. It's not like he was too hamstrung over the past 6 years to push the initiatives he outlined tonight. He has had carte blanche and he could have gotten whatever he wanted through Congress all this time.
When he spoke about spending people's money wisely and the Federal Government's thirst for spending (or however he termed it), I almost swallowed my tongue! It's HIS spending that got us where we are yet he did not acknowledge that nor apologize for it.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of global climate change and the need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. His reasons for the need to reduce that dependency were spot on (hostile regimes, manipulating markets, etc...). I question whether 20% is enough of a reduction, but it's definitely an idea to a step in the right direction ('idea' because I don't exactly see how he would put that in motion).
Acknowledging global crises such as Darfur and AIDS in Africa and Belarus and all the other hot spots was definitely positive. I hope we can as a nation have an impact on major humanitarian issues and I hope the commitment to that is legitimate.
Investing in R&D for alternative and clean fuel sources is an EXCELLENT idea. What the pro-oil people fail to realize is that this is a market that they can pioneer! Why not shift company focus from strictly being an oil company to the more broader idea of being an energy company? Think about it - Exxon-Mobil Energy Co, for example. However, if they don't take the lead, it opens up a whole new segment, no, a whole new industry that will provide vast numbers of jobs for our economy. I hope they do set in motion a way to reduce roadblocks to these technological developments and to help subsidize this burgeoning industry.
I won't get into the Iraq segment of his speech, but I will acknowledge that he outlined his thought process adequately. I just don't see how 150K troops is going to do now what it couldn't back in November 2005, especially considering how much worse the conditions are now compared to then. If he really was going to defy everyone in the world and actually escalate the war, he should have gone balls out and sent an additional 200K+ servicepeople over. Instead, he defies everyone and sends, honestly, a negligible amount of troops.
I certainly don't want to dampen the mood here as I am quite thrilled to see you actually show some objectivity towards the man... But, the reality is that his tone and virtually all of his positions are ones that he has been espousing for years now...
It won't take long... most likely first thing tomorrow morning, before BDS (Bush Deranged Syndrome) takes hold of you and the others, and we'll quickly hear about how W is more dangerous than Hitler ever was, how America is hated throughout the world thanks to W, how he has created the most corrupt and immoral government ever to hold power in the U.S., and how W is the worst President in the history of our great nation...
W will keep being W... I heard a terrific analogy today from a very well respected historian... They compared Bush to Truman, in the sense that Truman initiated the Cold War, and was harshly criticized for doing so... Decades later, Truman is praised for his foriegn affairs position...
Like Truman, Bush has initiated a "Long War"... A "Global War on Terror", and as I have personally stated on several occasions, it is improper and impractical to assess W's position here, today... Decades from now, I believe Bush's stance on terror will be viewed in similar fashioin to Truman's position at the start of the Cold War... stick around... if you can stomach it...
Something that struck me: when he acknowledges the recent shift in power, he "congratulated" the democrats. IMO, he should have "welcomed" the new members--democratic and republican. By congratulating them, it clearly implies "victory," ipso facto, "conflict."
Seems even in the same breath that he welcomes bi-partisanism, he also continues to define the lines drawn in the sand.
I hate partisanism. HATE.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
But, the reality is that his tone and virtually all of his positions are ones that he has been espousing for years now...
And that is why I expressly stated my reservations about his SOTU in the original post ("lip service"). Shrub has shown what he is all about and while he and/or his speech writers put together a decent speech with some really good ideas, I'm afraid that these ideas that "he has been espousing for years now" are going to go the same way his ideas over the years have gone - nowhere.
His SOTU did not instill any confidence in him and I particularly did not like the tone that he used to express urgency in getting this things done. Like I said, it's like he thinks he was (or maybe he's just cleverly setting this up) handcuffed and just couldn't get things done for the past six years, so it's NOW imperative that Congress gets on the ball.
So, could you explain to me with good reason and logic WHY Bush is acting like he has been hamstrung? Can you explain to me WHY these ideas "he has been espousing for years now" are not more than ideas even with complete hegemonic control at all levels of government? Can you even respond to this intelligently?
I was just poring over the transcript of the SOTU on Cnn.com and I realized that I caught all of the speech. Did it start late? I got in my car at 7:13PM and Bush was congratulating Speaker Pelosi and based on the transcript, that was the first portion of his speech. What gives?
A Shift in Power, Starting With ‘Madam Speaker’
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President Bush delivering the State of the Union address Tuesday night at a joint session of Congress. It was the first time in the Bush administration that Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: January 24, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 — The first two words of the evening on Tuesday were evidence of how much has changed here: “Madam Speaker,” boomed Congressional escorts, “the president of the United States.”
Behind Mr. Bush stood Vice President Dick Cheney and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the first woman to serve as House speaker. “We always give the president a warm welcome as our guest,” she said.
Even Mr. Bush acknowledged the transformation, setting off a wave of applause. “Tonight, I have the high privilege and distinct honor to begin a speech with the words ‘Madam Speaker,’ ” he said in a nod to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to be speaker of the House.
But all the courtesies and flourishes of the evening could not paper over the reminders of how power has flowed away from the president in the new Washington.
Not just because for the first time Mr. Bush delivered his address with a Democrat staring down his back. Not just because his poll numbers are dismal. Not just because the mayor of the nation’s capital rejected the White House’s invitation to sit with the first lady, Laura Bush, in her box and instead came as Ms. Pelosi’s guest. Even Republicans, while noting that it was “the president’s day,” as Senator John W. Warner of Virginia described it, yielded only a share of the spotlight.
Mr. Warner and others were working with Democrats, whom six months ago they derided as Defeatocrats, on resolutions opposing Mr. Bush’s proposal to increase the number of troops in Iraq. They unveiled their resolutions in the days before the speech and were planning to take them up the morning after.
The boxes on either end of the chamber — Ms. Pelosi’s on one, the first lady’s on the other — were a tableau of change.
In some years past, Mr. Bush invited Iraqis to make his case for the war, including Ahmed Chalabi, the exile-turned-advocate for the war who has now fallen from favor, as well as ordinary Iraqis with ink-stained fingers to prove that they had cast their ballots in their first democratic elections. This year, the only reminders of Iraq were a few soldiers; the box was mostly filled with educators, entrepreneurs, an energy researcher and those with heartwarming 9/11 stories.
The Democrats, meanwhile, invited people who symbolized the legislation they have passed in their first two weeks in office: advocates of embryonic stem cell research, those who fought for national security reforms after the Sept. 11 attacks, and labor leaders who backed an increase in the minimum wage.
In preparation for the president’s address, Ms. Pelosi of California had been coached by her staff to keep a neutral face. They warned that any raised eyebrow or pursed lip would be captured by the cameras trained on the president.
But while Ms. Pelosi emphasized that she would be “respectful,” her very choice of words earlier in the day signaled the new dynamic. “We always give the president a warm welcome as our guest in the chamber,” she said, with the operative word, “guest.”
Democrats had decided it not in their interest to look churlish during the speech. Lawmakers were advised to take their cues on when to stand, sit down and applaud from Ms. Pelosi. She sat on the dais next to Mr. Cheney, her junior by several months, but an emblem of a generation of white male politicians. They exchanged few words as they waited for the parade of lawmakers to assemble. At some points during the speech, Ms. Pelosi beat Mr. Cheney in jumping to an ovation.
Her caucus said that they expected Ms. Pelosi to, in the words of Representative John B. Larson of Connecticut, show “poise, dignity, comity.”
Appearances were obviously important to Ms. Pelosi, who changed from the brown suit she had worn earlier in the day to a soft green one, which offered more contrast to her dark leather speaker’s chair.
The noise level in the chamber seemed more muted, as Democrats exercised their new majority by sitting on their hands and staying off their feet during many applause lines. Republicans, who had promised to be “boisterous” to make up for their diminished numbers, greeted Mr. Bush with a series of “ho’s!”
Democrats, in turn, shouted, “Hey!” and “Yeah!” when the president introduced Ms. Pelosi as the first female speaker. The president’s congratulations to the “Democrat majority” won only polite applause from both sides. The chamber erupted most unanimously and loudly for Wesley Autrey, the man who leapt into the tracks of a New York subway to save a fellow passenger. (The only ones not clapping, it appeared, were Mr. Autrey’s two young daughters, who napped beside him in their bubblegum-colored dresses.)
Democrats leapt to their feet with the Republicans when Mr. Bush said he wanted to balance the federal budget, provide affordable health care, leave medical decisions to doctors and patients rather than bureaucrats, reduce gasoline consumption and increase alternative fuels.
But the applause was more Republican-only when Mr. Bush said he could balance the budget without raising taxes. Almost no Democrats clapped when he said his candidates for federal judgeships should get quick “up or down votes.”
And there were lines that got little support from Mr. Bush’s own side of the aisle. When he pledged to uphold the “tradition of the melting pot,” the Republican House leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, grimaced and clapped just once. When Mr. Bush went further and vowed “comprehensive immigration reform” — code words for the plan the House rejected the Senate approved last year — two top House Republicans, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Adam Putnam of Florida, stayed seated, hands quiet.
And when the president addressed the issue that has dominated discussions on Capitol Hill in recent weeks, his proposed increase in troops in Iraq — there was little unanimity between the parties, or within them. Most Democrats remained seated as the president urged the chamber to “find our resolve.”
Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York cast a disapproving eye on those who stood, including Senators Joseph I. Lieberman and John Kerry. And while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat forward in her seat and nodded as he described the increase in troops, Republicans who have criticized the plan, including Mr. Warner, stayed off their feet. Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine sat stone still. Across the aisle, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa shuddered and shook his head, and Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York tipped his head back and stared at the ceiling.
Perhaps the most poignant commentary on the war and the plan to increase troops came in the Democratic response to the speech, given by Senator James Webb of Virginia. He had been chosen because, as Senator Harry Reid, the Democrats’ leader, said, he understood what it meant to go to war. A former secretary of the Navy and ex-marine, his son is serving in Iraq.
In his speech, he held up a photograph of his father serving as an Air Force captain in Germany. He had carried it with him for most of his life, he said. And as a child, he had taken it to bed for three years as he prayed for his father’s safe return.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
But the applause was more Republican-only when Mr. Bush said he could balance the budget without raising taxes.
I can't believe I neglected to address this in the original post. This was the most ridiculous, pie-in-the-sky assertion of the entire speech. This is simply impossible. The only way to even attempt to do that would be to cut the bottom out from under society in gutting social programs, the DOE, Medicare/Medicade and SS. Doing that might result in a short-lived short run turn towards balance, but that would ultimately lead to economic catastrophe (the Law of Unintended Consequences) and, frankly, social catastrophe and stratified chaos.
If he is intending to invoke trickle-down economics, he is way off base on that as well because trickle-down economics, while excellent in principle, is an absolute farce in reality. How can I say that with such certainty? Compare the average CEO pay versus the average pay for the lowest wage employee. The ratio os 400:1 when it used to be 20:1. Trickle-down economics is an excellent theory, but in practice it transforms itself to "trickle-up" economics.
Balance the budget while spending uncontrollably into a war all while NOT increasing taxes? Please tell me how the hell that will happen!!!
I certainly don't want to dampen the mood here as I am quite thrilled to see you actually show some objectivity towards the man... But, the reality is that his tone and virtually all of his positions are ones that he has been espousing for years now...
It won't take long... most likely first thing tomorrow morning, before BDS (Bush Deranged Syndrome) takes hold of you and the others, and we'll quickly hear about how W is more dangerous than Hitler ever was, how America is hated throughout the world thanks to W, how he has created the most corrupt and immoral government ever to hold power in the U.S., and how W is the worst President in the history of our great nation...
W will keep being W... I heard a terrific analogy today from a very well respected historian... They compared Bush to Truman, in the sense that Truman initiated the Cold War, and was harshly criticized for doing so... Decades later, Truman is praised for his foriegn affairs position...
Like Truman, Bush has initiated a "Long War"... A "Global War on Terror", and as I have personally stated on several occasions, it is improper and impractical to assess W's position here, today... Decades from now, I believe Bush's stance on terror will be viewed in similar fashioin to Truman's position at the start of the Cold War... stick around... if you can stomach it...
You listen to too much conservative radio. Also, would ya stop already with your "Bush being veiwed as a great leader years from now" line of crap, ain't gonna happen.
You listen to too much conservative radio. Also, would ya stop already with your "Bush being veiwed as a great leader years from now" line of crap, ain't gonna happen.
[quote=Divide Et Impera;1227396]And that is why I expressly stated my reservations about his SOTU in the original post ("lip service"). Shrub has shown what he is all about and while he and/or his speech writers put together a decent speech with some really good ideas, I'm afraid that these ideas that "he has been espousing for years now" are going to go the same way his ideas over the years have gone - nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divide Et Impera
His SOTU did not instill any confidence in him and I particularly did not like the tone that he used to express urgency in getting this things done. Like I said, it's like he thinks he was (or maybe he's just cleverly setting this up) handcuffed and just couldn't get things done for the past six years, so it's NOW imperative that Congress gets on the ball.
What did he say that made you feel this way? I certainly did not walk away with that impression. In fact, I thought this was by far, the most subdued SOTU I've yet seen from him... nothing in the manner in which he spoke last night suggested that he felt "handcuffed" in prior years...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divide Et Impera
So, could you explain to me with good reason and logic WHY Bush is acting like he has been hamstrung? Can you explain to me WHY these ideas "he has been espousing for years now" are not more than ideas even with complete hegemonic control at all levels of government? Can you even respond to this intelligently?
Again, I see nothing to suggest that he is "acting like he has been hamstrung"... His "ideas" relative to immigration, healthcare, education, social security are positions he has held for virtually his entire term. Including his "ideas" on terror...
However, W has never been one to play for the middle of the road... As a result, his ideas (not unlike "ideas" of any past leader or other politicians - see Hiliary's "ideas" on Nationalized Healthcare) meet with some approval and some rejection, in and out of his party... He believes (as do I), that the problems our country faces today require bold action. Compromising, which equates to minimizing the essence and impact of his "ideas", is simply not an option for W in most cases... While I can respect that approach, it does lead to divides in and out of his own party. Immigration is a good example... He could have easily caved to his party demands, and adopted the conservative position. His actual position or "idea" is more aligned with the Democratic position... Hence, no immigration reform and the "idea" remains just that, an "idea"...
Gee DEI... I tried really hard to respond as "intelligently" as I could... I hope I met your rigid standards. Please accept my apologies in advance if my response is beneath you... Really, I'll try even harder next time!
What did he say that made you feel this way? I certainly did not walk away with that impression. In fact, I thought this was by far, the most subdued SOTU I've yet seen from him... nothing in the manner in which he spoke last night suggested that he felt "handcuffed" in prior years...
You are absolutely right that there was a concilliatory tone to this SOTU. There was some level of symbolic deferrence to the new Congress. However, I got the impression I got because of all his "Rah rah! We need to do this now! The time is now!" stuff. My point is that if these things were so important, he could easily have passed ALL those things over the past 6 years - especially since "he has been espousing" those things for so long. I am inclined to believe, based on historical evidence of this WH, that this SOTU was another dog and pony show, but I liked what he said and I hold hopes that there actually will be action on the good ideas.....
Quote:
Gee DEI... I tried really hard to respond as "intelligently" as I could... I hope I met your rigid standards. Please accept my apologies in advance if my response is beneath you... Really, I'll try even harder next time!
Apology accepted.
I was merely commenting on your typical method of posting. You know you have a tendency to avoid and deflect and you have a tendency to condescend on others. I actually wish you would engage in conversation on these topics, which you seem to be doing on this thread, so keep it up....
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Linear Mode
