Author Topic: State of the Union (Read 969 times)

Udie at Work · « **on:** January 30, 2002, 12:48:22 PM »

I watched the whole dang thing even Gephardts response. I thought the speech was OK[/i]. His delivery was off to me and it made it hard for me to follow him because my roommate and I would cringe and start yelling at the TV. To me it looked like he was reading faster than the teleprompter which caused him to "run out of words". The congress interupted him too many times w/ applause too! I like the overall message of the speech and agree with probobly 99% of it, who'd a thunk it

I was left with a general overall feeling of anger and disgust at the congress, more so the Senate than the House. I was happy to see his little dig at the Senate too

What a bunch of hipocrites! Everytime he'd talk about anything bipartisan, like um helping our nation get through the recession, they'd all start clapping. The camera would pan around the room and you could tell by the looks on their faces they knew that starting today (really last night) it would be back to the same old crap. Our congress sux real bad, that goes out to both parties. I honestly wonder if there are ever 2 or 3 in the group that truely know what the hell they talk about. Most of my anger is pointed at Dashle and the Senate, since he decided that they should all go on Christmas break instead of simply voting on the economic stimulass thing. Then the next week Dashle went on the attack blaming Bush for the recession. Same ole same ol. I've already heard Democrats today talking about "tax cuts for the wealthy" God that argument's old.

One other feeling I'm left with is the happiness of FINALLY[/i][/u] having a person in the White House who means what he says, does what he says and has respect for the office he holds, even if he doesn't have the best speech delivery ability....

Eagler · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2002, 01:20:31 PM »

I like the fact we have someone in there now that knows the difference between good and evil and is not afraid to use the "God" word.

skernsk · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2002, 01:26:15 PM »

I was bored and channel surfing ... I saw your President yapping at a bunch of fat people in suits and paused to watch.

I was amused with the whole group getting up and applausing after every point he was making. ALL of them would clap when he discussed military spending, fighting taliban, education.

BUT you could see a defiinate division in the room when he discussed tax cuts, and anything to do with getting the economy going. Half would stand and clap ... the rest would sit on their hands and mumble to themselves.

I'm not up to speed on the American Government, but I like what I saw.

A few Questions:

1. How much longer can the US spend a Billion dollars an month and not have to raise your taxes?

2. How do you folks with kids feel about them having to spend two years in service to your country? My thoughts were...I'd be concerned for their saftey with all the trouble spots around the world.

3. What was he talking about when he mentioned working with Kennedy on some project?

I liked the fact that he will increase spending towards gathering Intelligence, and maintining security at the borders. I hope he squeakslaps our Prime Minister into doing the same thing.

Udie at Work · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2002, 01:35:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by skernsk

I was bored and channel surfing ... I saw your President yapping at a bunch of fat people in suits and paused to watch.

hehehe about the same feeling I had watching the congress.

I was amused with the whole group getting up and applausing after every point he was making. ALL of them would clap when he discussed military spending, fighting taliban, education.

Yeah it's all pomp and circumstance, bloated hipocrites trying to show the country they really do care, to be fair I'm sure a few do.

BUT you could see a defiinate division in the room when he discussed tax cuts, and anything to do with getting the economy going. Half would stand and clap ... the rest would sit on their hands and mumble to themselves.

Democrats with never comprimise on tax cuts unlessed forced to by a bad election.

I'm not up to speed on the American Government, but I like what I saw.

Neither are most of us down here

I wonder if most even know what they saw.

Tongue in cheek

A few Questions:

1. How much longer can the US spend a Billion dollars an month and not have to raise your taxes?

John Kenedy and Ronny Raygun both proved that lowering tax rates increases revenue, through expanded growth due to more capital in the market place. Also there is PLENTY of fat to trim off the budget, oops that's the congress' job probobly won't happen.

2. How do you folks with kids feel about them having to spend two years in service to your country? My thoughts were...I'd be concerned for their saftey with all the trouble spots around the world.

That's voluntary not required.

3. What was he talking about when he mentioned working with Kennedy on some project?

Education reform bill, neither got exactly what they wanted. BUT

middle ground was reached and passed, bout the only good thing they did last year.

I liked the fact that he will increase spending towards gathering Intelligence, and maintining security at the borders. I hope he squeakslaps our Prime Minister into doing the same thing.

You guys ever want to be the 51st or 52nd we will welcome you with open arms, just make sure to pay your taxes

Toad · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2002, 01:37:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by skernsk
BUT you could see a defiinate division in the room when he discussed tax cuts, and anything to do with getting the economy going. Half would stand and clap ... the rest would sit on their hands and mumble to themselves.

Yeah. We call this "unity".

"1. How much longer can the US spend a Billion dollars an month and not have to raise your taxes? "

Probably forever... that's only $12 Billion per year. We're used to TRILLION dollar defecits in recent past.

"2. How do you folks with kids feel about them having to spend two years in service to your country?"

That isn't what he asked for.

From the White House site:

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced his plan to launch the new USA Freedom Corps a comprehensive, integrated citizen service initiative. The USA Freedom Corps includes three major programs:

A new Citizen Corps to engage citizens directly in improving homeland security

An improved and enhanced AmeriCorps and Senior Corps

A strengthened Peace Corps

All of these elements of the "Freedom Corps" are made up of Volunteers

"3. What was he talking about when he mentioned working with Kennedy on some project?"

He and Ted agreed and promoted the recent Education Act. Like it or not, at least the Executive and the Legislative actually DID something!

That's getting to be rare enough.

Sikboy · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2002, 01:52:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by skernsk

I'm not up to speed on the American Government, but I like what I saw.

A few Questions:

1. How much longer can the US spend a Billion dollars an month and not have to raise your taxes?

About 9 Years following the Reagan Plan lol

Now I have a question for you about Canadian
Polotics:

Do you guys use a single member district plurality
system for electing people to your Parliament?

-Sikboy

easymo · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2002, 02:00:41 PM »

Executive and the Legislative actually DID something!"

Dashhole has FIFTY pieces of legislation setting on his desk, that he is effectively blocking.

Toad · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2002, 02:02:37 PM »

Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 2000

Or you can take a look at the Public Debt over the last 50 years and draw your own conclusions about whether or not it was just Reagan.

Or take a look at THESE years... of course, our taxes went UP in these years but it seems the Public Debt still went up.. hmmmmmmm

Date/ Public Debt

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

Let me see... two methods...

Debt increases and taxes go DOWN

or

Debt increases and taxes go UP

Which do you choose?

It's all smoke, mirrors and black magic anyway.

skernsk · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2002, 02:05:11 PM »

Quote

Do you guys use a single member district plurality

WTF does this mean?

Toad · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2002, 02:07:48 PM »

Yeah, Easy.. that's what makes the Education thing such a memorable event.

They actually passed something that might help.

Amazing, isn't it?

Sikboy · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2002, 02:21:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
[Or you can take a look at the Public Debt over the last 50 years and draw your own conclusions about whether or not it was just Reagan.

Or take a look at THESE years... of course, our taxes went UP in these years but it seems the Public Debt still went up.. hmmmmmmm

I don't get it Toad, we almost always seem to agree on things, but you're always misconstuing my posts.

I wasn't bashing Reagan for his budgetary policy, that was just the longest stretch of increased spending W/O any sort of Tax increase that I could think of. leaving the Sr. Bush holding the baby so to speak, was the joke (the 9th year being on his watch). I really don't comunicate well on these things lol.

-Sikboy.

Sikboy · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2002, 02:31:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by skernsk

WTF does this mean?

Yeah, I saw that one coming back at me....

It means: In Canada, when they elect MPs, do they divide the nation into individual districts, then elect ONE person to represent each district. And if so, does a person need a majority of all the votes cast (51%+) or simply more votes than anyone else?

-Sikboy

Toad · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2002, 02:38:16 PM »

My mistake then... I thought you were leading into the old Regan deficits/supply side thing.

I guess my point is.. look at that Public Debt chart. 1950-2000... see any years where the debt was ZERO?

Nope.

Hey, it's a traditional US thing.

skernsk · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2002, 04:14:17 PM »

Quote

It means: In Canada, when they elect MPs, do they divide the nation into individual districts, then elect ONE person to represent each district. And if so, does a person need a majority of all the votes cast (51%+) or simply more votes than anyone else?

We have the REP by POP mentality. Representation by population. In other words if you live in a more populated area you have more MP's.

Canada is divided into 301 electoral districts or ridings. Voters in each riding elect one member of parliament (MP) to send to the House of Commons. (The Senate in Canada is not an elected body.)

The party that wins the most ridings is asked by the Governor General to form the government. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. If the party wins in more than 150 ridings, it will have a majority government, which makes it much easier to get legislation passed in the House. If the winning party has fewer than 151 seats, it forms a minority government. In order to get legislation through the House, a minority government usually has to adjust policies to get enough votes from MPs of other parties.

The party that has the second highest number of seats in the House of Commons is called the Official Opposition.

Sandman · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2002, 05:19:26 PM »

I'm now worried. Lots of talk about spending and in the same breath more talk about tax cuts.

Where does Dubya think this money is coming from?

Social Security?

Oh yeah... that's where he's gettin' it.