The State of the Union address

[scaeagles]

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?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Bloody thing preemted both episodes of the Simpsons.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

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.

[BarTopDancer]

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.

[scaeagles]

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.

[Name]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Bloody thing preemted both episodes of the Simpsons.

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.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I do not recall ever watching a SotU, however, when the opposition party actually booed the President.

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

[Ghoulish Delight]

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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

but now it isn't a crisis and solvent far into the future and needn't be dealt with.

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.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Bloody thing preemted both episodes of the Simpsons.

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?"