The State of the Union address

[Gn2Dlnd]

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.

[scaeagles]

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

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?

America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government.

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

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But, of course, Bush can do nothing without resorting to base scare tactics, can he?

Nor can Cheney.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have told audiences that Social Security faces an $11 trillion shortfall if nothing is done to fix the current system. But they fail to mention that this is over the course of the “infinite future." Over the next 75 years -- still practically a lifetime -- the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion.

The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook.

Source: factcheck.org

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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

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

Media figures have falsely claimed that Democrats' audible disapproval of President Bush's misleading claim in his February 2 State of the Union address that Social Security will be "exhausted and bankrupt" in 2042 was "unprecedented." In fact, Republicans routinely booed and hissed during President Clinton's State of the Union addresses.

Many hosts and pundits suggested the Democrats' reaction was the first of its kind:

TED KOPPEL (ABC host): When the president talked about the bankruptcy of Social Security, there were clearly some Democrats on the floor who thought that that was taking it too far. And they did something that, apparently, no one at this table has ever heard before. They booed. [ABC, Nightline, 2/2/05; Koppel's panel consisted of former Bush adviser Mary Matalin, former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein, and former Clinton speechwriter Michael Waldman]

JOHN ROBERTS (CBS White House correspondent): At a couple points in this address, it looked more like the British Parliament than the United States Congress. I've never heard the minority party shout at the president during the State of the Union address. [CBS, post-speech coverage, 2/2/05]

JOE SCARBOROUGH (former U.S. representative (R-FL) and MSNBC host): After the Democrats booed and hissed, Republicans were on the floor saying, you know, we never once did that to Clinton. So every time he would talk about Social Security, the roars got a little louder. And they got behind their president. [MSNBC, Hardball, 2/2/05]

BOB BARR (former U.S. representative (R-GA) and CNN contributor): It will be a very, very difficult battle as we saw by the unprecedented and, I think, highly improper virtual booing of the president when he simply said that the system is going to be bankrupt and the time is now to fix it. [CNN, Inside Politics, 2/3/05]

JOE WATKINS (radio host and CNN substitute host): Did you hear it? Certainly not the polite protocol usually practiced when a president speaks to Congress. If a Democrat one day delivers a State of the Union address, I hope the Republicans won't lower themselves to such a disrespectful level. I hope last night's behavior by a few lawmakers doesn't set a new precedent, that both parties can agree to remain civil, even when voicing disagreements.

[...]

PAUL BEGALA (CNN host): Let me correct your history -- 1993, I was with President Bill Clinton in that House chamber when he addressed a joint session of Congress. And Republicans heckled him when he cited Congressional Budget Office statistics about the deficit. [CNN, Crossfire, 2/3/05]

JOHN GIBSON (FOX News host): Maryanne Marsh, what did you think of those audible jeers, boos, for the president? It sounded a little like the House of Commons: that grumbling that comes from the back-benchers when they don't like something [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair said. That isn't very common for state of the union speeches, is it?

MARYANNE MARSH (Democratic strategist): I don't ever remember hearing it, and was very surprised. But I have to say at least the good news is the Democrats are fighting and they're on offense. And they're more united than they've ever been against George Bush and the Republicans. [FOX News, The Big Story with John Gibson, 2/3/05]

In addition to the 1993 State of the Union, during which, as Begala pointed out, Republicans heckled Clinton, they also voiced their disapproval in three other Clinton State of the Union addresses, which were presumably attended by then-members of Congress Scarborough and Barr:

"Clinton's proposal to expand Medicare to allow Americans as young as 55 to buy into the system drew shouts of "no" and some boos from Republicans during his speech." [Chicago Tribune, 1/28/98]

"Only once did they unmistakably and collectively show their disapproval -- when Clinton spoke disparagingly of a GOP-sponsored constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Many Republicans hissed and some booed." [Los Angeles Times, 2/5/97]

"The upheaval wrought by the Republican election landslide was visible throughout the president's State of the Union address -- from the moment Speaker Newt Gingrich took the gavel to the striking silence that often greeted Clinton from the GOP. At one point, Republicans even booed. About 20 of them left as Clinton went on and on for an hour and 20 minutes." [Associated Press, 1/24/95]

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

JOHN ROBERTS (CBS White House correspondent): At a couple points in this address, it looked more like the British Parliament than the United States Congress. I've never heard the minority party shout at the president during the State of the Union address. [CBS, post-speech coverage, 2/2/05]

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.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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?"