The State of the Union address
 

I watched the speech last night, of course, but have not reread the text of it anywhere.

I don't want to rehash any of the themes or points, though if someone wants to bring them up, that's great. I just wanted to say that I thought it was an excellent speech. It was concise and not too lengthy. While public speaking is certainly not his strong point (obviously), I thought he presented exceptionally well, and in fact, I consider it to be the best speech of his political career (I did not see any of his speeches prior to him running for President, however).

I do not recall ever watching a SotU, however, when the opposition party actually booed the President. That was uncalled for even if they disagree and I think it makes them look...well....petty.

I also was moved by the hug between the Iraqi voter and the parents of the slain marine. I do not think that in and of itself was staged, but the planners certainly were aware of the possibilities. I thought it...again, petty....that many commentators, including Chris Matthews, called the genuineness of the moment into question.

Thoughts? Observations? Debate points?

Bloody thing preemted both episodes of the Simpsons.

Sorry, didn't watch it. I have no desire to see him babble on about spreading freedom and democracy when that wasn't even close to being the reason we invaded. We were told that they posed a threat to our security. They did not and now there are countless dead on both sides. I've no desire to hear his spin.

I also have no desire to hear him spew his bull**** about social security and gay marriage.

I watched a crappy movie instead and feel that my time was far better spent.

Nope, didn't watch it. Enjoyed a re-run of L&O. Had no desire to hear him justify the thousand-plus US troops and countless Iraqi civilians that have died. Had no desire to hear him talk about promoting freedom and democracy when we were told we were going into Iraq because they posed a threat to us and our safety. Had no desire to [not] hear him talk about WMDs that were never found. Had no desire to hear him talk about repressing my fellow Americans because they happen to be gay. Had no desire to hear him talk about taking away my right to choose.

Nope, didn't watch it, but from my post I'm sure you can see that I knew what was being said.

Such hostility today. Of course, I admit to not watching the dem response because it would have made me ill, so I can relate to your sentiments MBC and Bartop.

About social security, though - certainly no BS there. I find it interesting that there was a social security crisis as defined by Clinton during his term. Nothing was done about it. There are still the same unchanged numbers about when it can no longer be sustained, but now it isn't a crisis and solvent far into the future and needn't be dealt with.

Now that is just wrong...

Didn't watch it, had another event, I may read the transcript so I can write about it for class credit though. I don't think I would bother otherwise though.

Did they? That almost makes me regret boycotting the speech.

While I find it interesting that the grand a glorious plan that's been finally revealed is basically the exact same plan proposed under Clinton, except the individual does the investing instead of the government. Big whoop.

Does SS need to be fixed? Yep. Is it a crisis? Hell no. It needs a few tweeks. I mean geez, the plan as unveiled is hardly anything. Of course, the way it's presented is highly misleading. You aren't actually investing your money. You won't have access to the money that you "get" to invest. Instead, you get the interest...and ONLY the interest that is above and beyond what it would have made in the traditional system. Gee, golly, how generous, what an amazing incredible change to prevent this horific crisis.

Some numbers: Under the propsal, if you "invest" $1000 a year for 40 years an it earns 4%, you get...$21,100 when you retire. That's from an investment that would have grown to almost $100,000 at that interest rate. Now, keep in mind, that's how social security works. Under the old system, you paid in X ammount, and in the end, you got back the interest on that money as if it had earned about 3% a year. So you WOULD be getting more if you manage to invest it at 4% a year than you would have from traditional SS. BUT, Bush is selling this as a "nest egg" and as a "personal investment" when it's anything but. It's just a plan to invest Social Security dollars in sort of an open market (the government would actually still limit where you can invest the money) instead of locking it into using treasury bonds at a fixed rate. You still don't get to keep that invested money. Bush's rhetoric is, as usual, a bunch of crap.

I don't recall ever saying that it needn't be dealt with. I just think the plan been presented is a bad one for all the reasons stated above.

Not up here. In fact, that's what I watched instead of the SotU. We got to see the classic episode where Homer meets John the homosexual.

Marge: "He prefers the company of men."

Homer: "Who doesn't?"

Had to turn it off when he got to his bit about amending the constitution to continue legally marginalizing my life.

And this administration's habit of blatant fear-mongering should have been getting boos for the last 3 or 4 years.

The difference being that what you have invested can now be passed down to your children.

When SS was originally passed into law, there were 16 workers for every one retiree. The average life expectancy was 66, so on average there was one year of benefits being provided. Now, there are about 3 workers per retiree, and the average life expectancy is around 74 or 75. Big difference. Requires major changes.

GD, I agree this isn't much different than what Clinton proposed. Anything is a step forward. But this is why the boos made me laugh, really - they are booing what Clinton was for and they supported when he was in office.

No, what they were booing was the rhetoric of fear, as well as the plan to cut benefits. There's also that little part of the plan the people have issue with.

And, actually, if it were managed as designed from the start, it should have worked with next to zero change. Unfortunately, a LONG time ago, the money started being diverted to pay for other government programs, so it stopped being self sustaining. In the long run, it shouldn't matter what the current ratio of workers to retires is. During the boomers' working years, there should have been a huge surplus that would have gotten us through the bommers' retirement years. However, it was mismanaged. What needs to be done is some ship-righting. Do a little work to get things back on even keel, STOP using the money for anything other than sustaining the system, and the system should then be able to sustain itself into the future.

It's been 70 years. With no change, at full benefits, the system will last for another 40 years. Hardly cause for mass panic and major change. Some small tweaks to shore things up, life goes on. But, of course, Bush can do nothing without resorting to base scare tactics, can he?

And may I just laugh hardily at this line from the transcript?

Bwahahahah, oh man, that's a good one.

Nor can Cheney.

Source: factcheck.org

Yes, and until last week when they were outed, they were saying it would start going into the red long before the actual date, conveniently ignoring the existence of treasury notes that will keep it funded until the 2042 (or whatever year it is). The transcript of the SoU was the first time I'd seen Bush use the actual date instead of his fear-monger lie.

You failed to mention that they booed The Great Liberator for telling this whopper: "By the year 2042, the entire system (Social Security) would be exhausted and bankrupt."



Well, by 2042 (or 2052 if you choose to believe the Congressional Budget Office), Social Security will still be able to pay between 70 and 80 precent of the promised benefits. That's a helluva long way from "bankrupt". What we have here is another attempt by the president to scare the electorate into going along with what he wants by telling blatant lies.


So scaeagles, I ask you, why exactly is calling the president on his lies "petty"? If you want to see petty, take a look at what the Republicans did to Clinton when he lied about filling an intern's gullet with presidential pork.

Fortunately, the folks at mediamatters.com have a longer and more complete memory.

See http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040014

I don't particulary like to see any President heckled during a State of the Union address. But I am at a loss to figure out just what is a the correct response when a President lies to Congress and the American people.

Perhaps my friends who support this President could give some guidance there.

I think there should be this opened up style of back and forth communication with Congress and the President. Has anyone ever seen Blair and the House of Commons go at it? It's brilliant. There is a freedom in that chamber to speak your mind and an opportunity for many people to do so.

It's interesting that the UK has this sort of freedom to speak with their leader, while we're the ones who have to deal with a king.

We do have that freedom, we just don't use it much out of fear of retribution.

It occurs to me, that, in Europe, when a sizeable portion of the population is fed up with some government failing or another, they go on strike. Not like Disneyland Cast Members who belong to Hospital and Service Worker's Union Local 486 going on strike for an extra nickel per hour, but whole social groups refusing to buy, work, use public transportation, or contribute to the economy in any way.
What do you suppose would happen if everyone who felt that relying on the stock market to keep their bills paid upon retirement was a bad idea, decided to stop shopping at Wal-Mart, buying gas, or showing up to work? What do you suppose would happen if every out Gay man and woman decided to stop contributing to society? Wouldn't it be interesting for the rest of American society to find out their IT guy, waitress, doctor, car repairman, cable guy, Sparklett's guy, barrista, teacher, pastor, gym trainer, postal worker, website administrator, radio show host, etc., etc., etc., wasn't at work today, or tomorrow, or until some movement started being made to respect their equal place in society? Aside from the /obvious/ hack jokes about hairstyles and interior design suffering, what do you think would happen if we just started saying, "No?"

I would pay to see Bush being but to the test in Parliament.

Lol! It would be a major 'deer in the headlights' moment. I love the way the British, usually so noted for their manners and decorum, behave in the House of Commons. Fun to watch.

I stand corrected.

I do not think it to be an appropriate response from anyone when anyone is speaking. It's an issue of decorum. Someone has the podium and is speaking. It is only polite to let that person speak. You have the opportunity to rebut later, and in the case of the SotU, that chance comes 30 minutes or so later.

We could always head further down the path - ins't it South Korea or Taiwan or somewhere that has had more than one riot erupt in the last decade or so?

If those who agree with him get to give standing ovations on the spot, then those that disagree have every right to voice their displeasure on the spot. They didn't disrupt him from speaking or shout him down.

Several Asian countries have had brawls errupt. But it hasn't happened in Parliament for quite some time. Of course, Parliament is cleverly designed such that the two sides of the house are exactly 2 sword lengths apart ;)

Yeah... Pity you missed that.

Considering the lengths to which Bush goes to prevent dissenters from attending his private speaches, including making people sign loyalty oaths, the rare opportunity for dissenters to voice their displeasure directly to him is something that must be taken.

Oh, not really. In the same spirit that a few here have said they couldn't watch the SotU, I would not have done well watching the rebuttal.

Absolutely. Isn't he also the president with the least amount of press conferences of any other president?

The Dems would kick Republican ass.:p

Yes. We could roll Ted Kennedy over all of them.

Teddy has been dieting, so he may be off his game.