What did y'all think of it?

I saw the first half and it seemed up-beat, the pres. was giving the Dems and the country what they seemed to want. I wasn't happy with the health insurance/tax proposals myself, but those in attendance seemed to like it.

I heard the second half about Iraq and the supposed 'war on terror' on the radio and was quite dissapointed. I was a strong supporter of GW in the first part of his presidency - now, to me, this seemed like a report from a failed president

Such a shame.

Sorta the same opinion of the speech; but a lot of rhetoric, not much meat. Same old nonsense about the budget; a disturbing lack of understanding about spending, and an unwillingness to admit that you can't cut revenue (taxes) without decreasing spending. But then, it would be political suicide to tell the truth, as Stockman, Bush 1 and others have discovered.

We really do need a fiscal sanity party..........

If you take it for what it is, a partisan national pep talk and nothing else, you have no issues. I mean who really needs a State of the Union address in this day and age? We are more aware of the state of our union than our sitting president who seems to be either demented or on a mission of self-destruction.

If you actually get so full of yourself (as most of Washington is) that you take it seriously and analyze it to death, dissect every word, every nuance of body language and mannerism, hash and re-hash, let your stock markets crash or rally on what was said, then you are either bored or an idiot or a sucker. Or a TV news personality which is about the same thing.

And as that is the reality in America, there ya have it. It's a useless national habit and tradition.

Jennifer

Cutting taxes historically results in INCREASED tax revenues Base, you know that - Kennedy did it, Reagan did it, and W did it. Agree about spending though, enough is enough - lets start with the National Endowment for the Arts, Education, and maybe some controls on Medicare, Social Security and Welfare - the prime drivers of discretionary spending in the budget.

Agree with Jen for the most part that the State of the Union address is a snooze-fest anymore, hasn't been a good one since Ronnie IMO - I no longer watch them, just read it - takes 5 minutes.

Civilian service corps is a good idea.

I like the concept of encouraging increased market forces by allowing more health insurance choice although I do not like the undeniable result of taxing health bennies - more choice and more market forces though will benefit health costs.

Energy independence will never get anything other than lip service from Government because we seem unable to make a common-ground between destroying the economy with ridiculous demands now or do-nothing.

Funny how when more troops and more focus is their idea people are all for it but when W says it, it has to be wrong. Some people just need to be honest and own up to the fact that they will never give the man a break.

Today's non-binding referenDUMB condemning the new plan is a perfect example of all sizzle, no steak. Let these guys and gals pull the funding if they are serious about opposing this war, not seeking face time and soundbites. They lack the courage of their convictions though, and seek only power and fame, and as such will continue to harangue the President while not actually DOING anything.

I prefer less reliance on Government and more investment in the private sector and we-the-people, because that is where REAL progress comes from, but that is just me.

Nice report, John - I didn't understand the taxing of health benefits the way you described it. To my understanding, health benefits will not be taxed under this proposal, only that employers will now add the cost of health care to your income (which is what it is, after all - part of an employees income), and the employee will have a deduction for it up to $7,500 on their personal 1040 tax form.

Thus, for someone whose employer provides health benefits, it is a wash: for someone who has to buy their own insurance and who previously did not get a deduction, will now be able to take a deduction. ie. it is levels the playing field (ie reduces the tax) for those people whose employers do not provide the benefit.

What I don't like about it is this - people who are low paid, or very small business people and self-employed people whose income is close to or below the threshold for paying income tax - who couldn't afford to buy health insurance before - still cannot afford to buy health insurance because their Adjusted Gross Income is so low they do not pay any or pay very little income tax against which they can claim deduction.

Thus, the situation is more or less the same for employees who have health benefits, a tax deduction for people who can afford to buy their own insurance, and the people who do not get or cannot afford health insurance still have to go without.

Not a good solution, at all.

The Iraq situation will not be eased and certainly not solved with a mere 20,000 additional troops, in my opinion. If it is to be settled militarily, it will take a doubling of the forces, I think, and even then I would not guarantee subjugation of the opposing forces.

How many troops are there now? 180,000? +22,000 = 200,000.

I believe it took 150,000 troops just to make a beachhead in 1944, and nearly a million to push the German troops to defeat. (rough figures)

I would doubt that 400,000 troops could take and hold a country the size of Iraq. It is ludicrous to even consider continuing to fight there, and utterly impossible to secure a secure and peaceful Iraq, without the agreement and help of neighboring countries. I don't care how much GW (and others) don't like Iran or Syria, they surround Iraq on three sides. Without their participation, peace is impossible.

You can choose your friends, but you cannot choose your family or your enemies. America will eventually come to the understanding that they must deal with the enemies that fate has decreed. I hope not too many more people will die waiting for that realisation to sink in. Pretending Iran and Syria do not exist, is a fool's game.

There's another aspect of the health care problem that people fail to realise -- the very people who need it most are the people who cannot get it.

Who needs health care the most? Sick people, of course.

Here is the problem with private health insurance-- As long as you and your family are healthy (or at least are not sick), you can get health insurance, if you or your employer can pay for it. Once you get seriously ill or have some serious medical problem that prevents you working, you will eventually lose your job. If your job provided health insurance, you are now without coverage, and being sick, you cannot get insurance, even if you could afford it after having lost your job. Now you are in need of medical attention but cannot get it.

Now, there may be some carryover off benefits for a while but these will eventually run out and you become uninsurable. Until you are well again and can stay well for a few years. But how can you get well and stay well for a few years if you are sick and without medical attention?

It seems to me one will remain perpetually sick and will thus remain perpetually uninsurable and thus forever without medical attention. Until it kills you.

Sorry, KG- ya keep repeating the same lie, but it doesn't get truer. The deficit skyrocketed under Ronnies tax cut, just like W.'s. When less money goes in- less money goes in. All the supply side nonsense doesn't change that. While our economy grows in spite of the government (giving us increasing revenues most years, tax increase or decrease- doesn't matter), that is a seperate issue. W's bragging about cutting the deficit in half was pathetic; he inherited a "balanced" budget, promptly cut taxes and gave US a 400 billion dollar defict- and is now bragging it is "only" half. WOO HOO!!!!

Curious- did you ever read Stockmans book after he was wrung out of government? I thought his admission that the systemic problems of government spending were really too much for 1 person or administration to resolve. Maybe we should pass Baseline's Law on spending increases to match my pass one law, repeal 2; howzabout increase spending by a dollar in one place (military, education, doesn't matter)- and cut 2 somewhere else?:rulz:

See, I can solve all the problems of the world, if they just let me be the Ultimate Ruler for week or so.........:tiphat:

...See, I can solve all the problems of the world, if they just let me be the Ultimate Ruler for week or so.........I think you would have to plan on a longer stay in the White House than that, BL!

The BBC were reporting on this last night while I was at the gym.

The outlook - from them at least - was that Bush cut a lonely figure, and had become isolated from his party, and had "lost the nation" (or words to that effect).

First a correction from my post above, Social Security, Welfare and Medicare are not really discretionary spending, but together they are the largest component of the national budget which is now in the $1.3-1.5 Trillion dollar range.

Base, I said REVENUES increase with tax cuts and that is no lie, it is historical fact. Without spending control though (which I agree with you on), deficits will definitely rise.

Now remind me, does the President sign the Checks or is that Congress, seems somebody might be confused.

And who was the majority party in Congress during Reagan's terms, that's right, it was the Democrats. And how much of the deficit spending in the 80's was the result of social spending and bailing out the S&L's? Genuinely asking as I don't know how the budget broke down then insofar as military vs other discretionary spending as well as non-discretionary like Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, etc.

W and the Republican majority in Congress for the first 6 years of his term do NOT have an excuse in terms of spending, it was attrocious (as I have always said), but tax cuts do historically INCREASE tax revenues, and that is ALL that I said. I actually agree with you above and again here, that cutting spending is needed to keep deficit growth in check. Hell, I even went so far as to make some suggestions on where spending could be cut that would trim untold billions off the budget.

The 'balanced' budget and 'surplus' that W 'inherited' were all projected, not real, and there was this little thing called 9/11 and the subsequent war-on-terror that upset that apple-cart, IMO.

Now remind me, does the President sign the Checks or is that Congress, seems somebody might be confused.



Congress authorizes funding for spending the President has approved. For all the party banter, it is really collusionary.