State of the Union

State of the Union 2005: Success or Failure?

  • Total voters
    36
seinfeldrules

seinfeldrules

Newbie
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Messages
3,385
Reaction score
0
Did anyone watching it consider it a success, or a failure? I didnt have a chance to catch it, so some feedback would be good. Anyone who could point me in the direction of an audio (mp3,wav) download would be thanked.
 
Success. The case for Social Security reform was laid out almost flawlessly. Extreme pressure also put on Syria and Iran as needed.
 
Yeah I'm feeling it. I thought this was one of his better speeches.
 
I was looking for a downloadable version anyways. I dont think there is a way to record it off real player. I hate it.
 
Didn't strike me as either. It was just another run-of-the-mill speech delivering the same sorts of rhetoric he's always delivered.
 
Didn't strike me with anything noteworthy. It wasn't a complete lame duck SotU, but wasn't flashingly brilliant either (note Reagan.)

While basically offering an almost apocalyptic vision of the future on Social Security, he did not outline a solid plan. He only said what would happen if they didn't go along with him, and a rosy picture if they did.
While he mentions some countries that are threatening (Iran), he did not go so far as to mention any forms of actions he would take (apart from Palestine).
The majority of his speech was applauding and congragulating the victors of the Iraqi election and mourning with the parents of a fallen marine.
What is usually a long and specific laundry list of issues a president should tackle wasn't apparent. It took only about 5 minutes for him to touch on scientific research, AIDS, gangs, and marriage.
In raising these issues though, you can practically tell how divided Congress was.
All the Republicans seemed forced to clap to everything he said. All the Democrats just clapped, knowing that he is either short-sighted or taking a partisan stance.

And if I had a dollar for everytime he said the word "Freedom" and equating it with near-utopia....
 
...and our country will never forget the debt we owe Michael and all who gave their lives for freedom... So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk... while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom...and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight... -- because while the price of freedom and security is high...I invite you to join the new USA Freedom Corps. The Freedom Corps will focus on three areas of need... One purpose of the USA Freedom Corps will be homeland security...USA Freedom Corps will expand...we will demonstrate that the forces of terror cannot stop the momentum of freedom...We choose freedom and the dignity of every life...We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, my fellow Americans, we will see freedom's victory.
Click to expand...

One two three four five six characters is the minimum length for a message...
 
he beat people over the heads with the freedom stick
 
I listened to a little bit of it. I can't stand the guy so I turned it off and watched "The Forgotten" instead. Bush just pisses me off. He's always smirking. I wish someone would knock that smirk from off his face.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Success. The case for Social Security reform was laid out almost flawlessly.
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone could believe that unless they were dropped on their head as a child.

SS faces a short term crunch that is many many many orders of magnitude less than the deficit problem (only a liar could claim that the system will be "bankrupt": if that's true, then the federal government has by the EXACT SAME CRAZY DEFINTION been bankrupt since Bush took office... and it seems to be getting on ok). But that gross scaremongering isn't even the point. The point is that Bush didn't say a single word about how he's going to fix that problem. Not a word. If you think he did, that's just because you're too much of a sucker to realize that private accounts have nothing to do with shoring up the benefit/payroll shortfall, and in fact they both a) cost more money to start up (in the trillions) and b) hurt, not help the currently owed benefit problem. In other words, Bush is simply playing on people's gross stupidity in thinking that just because private accounts have something to to do with social security, they constitute a solution do the benefit crunch.

What makes it worse is that I think transitioning to private accounts are a pretty decent idea. But this is a deeply dishonest way to try and sell the idea.
 
Bush wants to "fix" SS so the democrats can't. The only real solution any side can come up with is a benefits cut in one form or another, be it recalculating the formulay for payouts or raising the retirement age. And that only delays the problem.

Private accounts are the first step in eliminating SS. Private accounts is a tax cut, in the long run, if you live long enough to collect, and even still your family collects. Private accounts gives people their money back, guaranteed. In the future, if Republican's are in control and people are less dependant on SS than they are today, there will be more legislation for further privatization; putting more of the FICA tax into private accounts. Eventually SS will be eliminated, with FICA taxes going into private accounts. Bush's work today is the groundwork for the elimination of SS tomorrow. Why would not having SS be a bad thing when the gov can guarantee a better return by putting FICA taxes in Private accounts?

Democrats say private accounts are a gamble, that investing in the stock market is a bad idea. I am not 100% sure but there are 5 options Bush is proposing for people to put their money in and at least a couple of those aren't investing in the stock market. Even still, the stock market has lulls, but over time it grows progressively stronger.

Democrats are mad because SS is their baby. They are gambling that Bush messes it up so they can fix it, but what would they do if Bush is successful? If he was, Bush would be more popular than FDR becaused he "fixed" SS. That is one of the democrat's worse fears, to fall out of standing with their voters and not be in control of gov in any form or fashion. This is evident by their obstruction in congress.
 
Private accounts gives people their money back, guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Except that with private accuonts, it ISN'T guaranteed: that's precisely the POINT of private accounts! It transfers the risk from the government to the individuals. Now that's not necessarily a good or bad thing, but it's a flat out lie to claim that it is the private account system and not the current SS regulations, that offer guaranteed payoffs. The guarantee that private accounts can offer is not to you, but to your beneficiaries. But hte money isn't guaranteed, and it's not really YOUR money, since it's still the government that runs the funds.

Basically, the whole program is like this:
1) we are giving the government permission to make riskier investments that usual in our name, using our taxed away money
2) the risk, instead of being on the government, is now on us

That's what private accounts are and do. Maybe you like that tradeoff, maybe you don't. But that's what's going on under the hood.

And keep in mind that all this doesn't have DIDDLY SQUAT to do with the crisis that Bush started out by talking about! It's as if he had turned from talking about how big of a threat Iran is and then turned around and said that the solution was to ban credit cards. What?
 
Wait....

They're gonna ban credit cards?!?!? :|
 
Forgettable, cliched, and not really captivating in any way. He mourned a bit for the victims of the war, brought up problems (albeit no solutions), and stuffed about 80% of it with rhetoric.

It was a fluff piece that gave the Republicans a day-long circle-jerk. The only time it's going to be quoted is when historians tally up the number of times "freedom" and "liberty" came up, allowing them to debate wether or not this was an attempt at brainwashing the American people.

Failure IMO.
 
So he wants to put part of the taxed away money in stock options.

Heck no they ain't gonna do that with my money, they either put it in a high intrest savings account where I can't touch it. Or they don't take it at all.
 
Social security needs help. The baby boomers are going to drain it. Its an old system that needs revision. I wouldnt have cared if Clinton had done it, or if Bush does it. It really shouldnt be a partisian issue, but its not like the rich asses in Washington personally care one way or another, they dont need it.

So he wants to put part of the taxed away money in stock options.
Click to expand...
They (Gov't) wouldnt. You would. They dont choose where in the stock market it goes, you do. At least thats my limited understanding of it.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Social security needs help. The baby boomers are going to drain it. Its an old system that needs revision. I wouldnt have cared if Clinton had done it, or if Bush does it. It really shouldnt be a partisian issue, but its not like the rich asses in Washington personally care one way or another, they dont need it.
Click to expand...

Actually, it wasn't a partisan issue. Democrats and even Congressional Republicans had been talking about some of the minor adjustments that could have been done without making a big deal about it or screaming at each other. It was Bush that decided that he could gain advantage by making this a partisan issue, and that's exactly what he's doing. The entire thing is a total sham, because there are some obvious and easy fixes to the system that could be make. But the public is apparently, in his mind, so dumb that they won't realize that private accounts have nothing to do with these reforms.

They (Gov't) wouldnt. You would. They dont choose where in the stock market it goes, you do. At least thats my limited understanding of it.
Click to expand...

Think about this for a second: if that's what Bush really wanted, why involve the government at all? Why not simply reduce payroll taxes so that you'd have more money to spend or invest any way your wanted. And if they still really thought we were too stupid to invest enough in our retirements, they could just create tax incentives or regulations stating that we have to save or invest some portion more. They wouldn't have to actually take and control the money. But that's exactly Bush's plan, at least as proposed: thye take your money, you give them the permission to invest in riskier investments, and YOU bear all the risk (instead of the government) That means that if the government decides that one of your riskier funds should buy up tons of the next Enron to help out another of Bush's friends, you are as screwed as the Enron pension owners. The whole thing is a shellgame.
 
Actually, it wasn't a partisan issue. Democrats and even Congressional Republicans had been talking about some of the minor adjustments that could have been done without making a big deal about it or screaming at each other. It was Bush that decided that he could gain advantage by making this a partisan issue, and that's exactly what he's doing. The entire thing is a total sham, because there are some obvious and easy fixes to the system that could be make. But the public is apparently, in his mind, so dumb that they won't realize that private accounts have nothing to do with these reforms.
Click to expand...

If Bush were making it partisan, than why did he leave the debate open to suggestions? He hasnt laid down a specific plan yet because he wants to see what members on both sides can come up with in Congress. Minor changes wont allieviate the big problem social security is in. Again, it is a dated system that somebody finally threw national attention upon.
 
seinfeldrules said:
If Bush were making it partisan, than why did he leave the debate open to suggestions? He hasnt laid down a specific plan yet because he wants to see what members on both sides can come up with in Congress.
Click to expand...

Boy, are you naive. The reason there is no plan is because his promises and rhetoric make no actual sense. The debate isn't "open to suggestions" in any meaningful way.

Minor changes wont allieviate the big problem social security is in.
Click to expand...

Sure they will. It was in the EXACT SAME "crisis" situation in the 80s, and a bipartisan Congress made the minor adjustments needed. The system would STILL be fine now if governments since then hadn't basically pilfered the system and more recently, completely burnt away the surplus.

Again, it is a dated system that somebody finally threw national attention upon.
Click to expand...

You are just parroting what the President said, which of course is in his interest to spin. The SS needs some minor adjustments, but it's not in catastrophic danger of near collapse. Adn private accounts won't do a THING to change that situation anyway, so how exactly is national attention beign thrown on it?
 
"Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector"

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
Fox News Sunday Feb 14, 1999
Click to expand...

Curious how its Bush making it a partisan issue...
 
The Democrats are responding to Bush's outragous misrpresentation, as they should. Bush is attempting to use the issue as a wedge with which to attack Democrats, and of course they are pointing out the illegitimacy of his attack.
 
The Democrats are responding to Bush's outragous misrpresentation, as they should. Bush is attempting to use the issue as a wedge with which to attack Democrats, and of course they are pointing out the illegitimacy of his attack.
Click to expand...

Even if they once supported the same thing...
 
Only someone as cracked in the head as you could claim that just because "Social Security private accounts" and "minor adjustments to Social Security" have the word 'Social Security" in them that this means they "once supported the same thing."
 
Apos said:
Only someone as cracked in the head as you could claim that just because "Social Security private accounts" and "minor adjustments to Social Security" have the word 'Social Security" in them that this means they "once supported the same thing."
Click to expand...
Man, insulting to make a point must be a great way to debate in NY. How about you leave the petty quips out of it and attempt to discuss your opinion in a civilized manner. :bounce:
 
How can there be a debate when the basic facts are being so grossly mangled that I might as well be arguing with a random number generator?
 
I liked it. The people who did'nt like it choose to slander the union address because they're not used to anything political except angst. :D
 
seinfeldrules said:
Curious how its Bush making it a partisan issue...
Click to expand...
In the 98-99 the CBO (a non-patisan organaization) was projecting SS to run out in 2029, that is 20 years earlier than what they are projecting now. Just a little fact check for ya as you Republicans need it:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501180003
 
I would say the speech was very well deliverd. But the contents where just fluff rhetoric that he has been spouting for a long time, it's the same with most politicans.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I havent seen the speech yet. How can I be repeating something I havent seen. Furthermore, I never claimed to be an expert on this subject at all.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if you saw it or not, what you said matters. ALl you did was repeat a RNC/GOP talking point; so if you don't know much about this don't repeat what you hear on Fox news and I won't jump all over you like this.
 
It doesn't matter if you saw it or not, what you said matters. ALl you did was repeat a RNC/GOP talking point; so if you don't know much about this don't repeat what you hear on Fox news and I won't jump all over you like this.
Click to expand...

I havent had time to watch the news over the past few weeks either. I am not repeating any 'talking point', except my own.
 
seinfeldrules said:
I havent had time to watch the news over the past few weeks either. I am not repeating any 'talking point', except my own.
Click to expand...
And it just so happens that what you repeated was released a couple days ago on the GOP web site as I pointed out and Fox news (along with other conservative sources) have constently repeated. So whoever you got that from got it from that talking point or from Fox. Look, I have no problem with you not knowing much about this; simply stay out of it and I won't have to get all defensive with you ;). I do hope that you learn a bit about it and hopefully I can teach you something about it. I know I have a bias but if you get your information from multiple sources instead of talking points you should be fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechnoHippyChic
The Many Diversions of THC's Work Lunches
Replies
3
Views
2K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
The other cancelled ports of Half-Life
Replies
3
Views
7K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
The cut missions of Half-Life: Decay
Replies
2
Views
21K
Evo
Evo
Back
Top