State of the Union 1/23/07

[Decade]

Well the State of the Union is on tonight (starting as I post).

I would like to hear peoples opinion's on it upon conclusion for those willing.

Thanks.

[Angelyne]

Honestly, what's the point of watching? It is just going to be lies, lies, and more lies.

[Noata]

Honestly, what's the point of watching? It is just going to be lies, lies, and more lies.
qft
10chararss

[NERD]

I can't stand watching them, the prez throws out some words, polite applause, rinse and repeat.

Plus, I find it much easier to analyze the address from the transcript.

[Trinadad]

I was looking to see if House was on tonight.

I turned on the TV and the State of the Union was on.

I turned the TV right back off.


Other than that, I'm not American, so I don't really care for it all that much.

[Lisa M]

My roommate is busy fangirling over the President being on TV.

She's appalled that I'm not watching it.

No matter how many times I try to pound it into her head, I really don't care about politics.

[Cherub Rock]

The State of the Union would be better if it ended with an impromptu rendition of Footloose.

[Mechs]

I didn't see it :(.

[Roxie]

I watched--in hopes of another Bushism jewel like "Is our children learning?" or the famous "There are rumors on the internets" Tried to get the jump on the Daly Show Writers...but alas! I got nothing but usual stumbling over words.

Boo.


But I would have to say it's the tamest one he's ever given. He definently realizes the game is changing (so, so slightly, but still).

[tweek.3867]

But I would have to say it's the tamest one he's ever given. He definently realizes the game is changing (so, so slightly, but still).
Which is why a fair portion of what he said was just spitting out what he knew would make the democrats happy... just what they were going to do anyway, ne?

I did find some amusement in how well the democratic response ripped Bush & the Republicans a new one. The Virginian was a perfect congressmen to deliver that speech.

[ZaichikArky]

Honestly, what's the point of watching? It is just going to be lies, lies, and more lies.

QTF QTF QTF. I was watching Everwood during that time and my dad and I were having an argument about why I wanted to watch only the "interpretations" of it, IE- the democrat's response. Then he made some more comments about how I'd rather watch some brainless soap opera than important current events which of course lead to another arguement about how much I hate republicans. At least I'm not trying to deny I'm not politically incorrect >_>.

[Plekto]

Just a bunch of soundbytes and stuff everyone can agree to, like lower taxes and better education and so on.

The thing is... And I know this from my EX, who has the exact same psychology as him... tommorrow morning, literally - it won't have existed. Like a switch in his head - and it's back to business as usual. WHat he wants to pay attention to, he does - the rest doesn't exist once it has passed.

I call this the "social chamelion" complex. Where someone acts exactly the way they should based upon the situation and the desired effect. But when they get home - it's clear it's all a very good act and as real to them as a video game.

In short, he's a sociopath. A totally unrepentant liar and jerk who puts on a good show when people are watching. Only he really exists - the rest of the world are merely annoyances unless they further his goals.

Just look in his eyes - there's no real soul behind what he says - it's all rehersed blather that he has to do - like some wrote exercise in class.

[Kass]

Honestly, what's the point of watching? It is just going to be lies, lies, and more lies.

So you know what he's saying and can form an intelligent opinion instead of one based on hearsay and paid hack opinions?

I wa actually stunned. The health care plan he proposed sounded like it was torn straight from the Democrat's book. That is about the least GOP proposal I've ever heard from Bush.

I prefer reading the address to watching it. You get all the same information without having to sit through all the stupid interruptions and all the idiot TV people.

PS. The Virginian congressman is an idiot, just less idiotic than most. He's a Republican in Democratic clothing. The ONLY issue he varies on from the GOP is the war and I've got news folks, that isn't the only issue that troubles this country. It's actually not even the most important. It's up there, but not at the top. He's anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and takes the whole GOP social agenda to heart. His take on the anti-unmarried couples amendment passed in Virginia? He'd have supported it if it had been more clear that it would only ban gay marriage and not be so vague as to deny unmarried heterosexual couples basic legal protections as well. That makes me feel way better. He'd only support bigotry if it was clearly defined bigotry. We can't be vauge in our discrimination, now can we?

If he can lie and fake his way into office as something he absolutely isn't, there is no reason whatsoever to believe he's sincere on any issue. It's all for appearances and to gain power. I guess he is better than his opponent though. George Allen was absolutely horrid. He didn't even have the decency to pretend he wasn't a hateful man.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Honestly, what's the point of watching? It is just going to be lies, lies, and more lies.

I'll tell you what my political Theory teacher told me.

"People are always going to tell you fact based on their opinion. That's probably one of the biggest problems with politics and democracy. What you have to do in this class if erase any opinion you have about anything currently going on and take another look at it in a realist perspective."

[Jetsetlemming]

In other words, 17 "Drop your previous biases! Adopt mine!"
:3

[Angelyne]

In other words, 17 "Drop your previous biases! Adopt mine!"

QFT. If you had a friend who lied to you for six years, then showed up on your doorstep with a big plan to help you, what would your reaction be? No amount of new talking points (that he has likely already forgotten) is going to win back the trust of the American public after six years of lies, wasteful spending, and incompetency. You don't earn an approval rating on par with Nixon by doing nothing.

Besides, the trillion dollars that we pumped into Iraq + other wasteful spending could have paid for everyone's health care and then some. George Bush doesn't care about anyone but himself and his war profiteers.

[Josh]

I thought it was quite amusing. Mr. Bush dancing around making the democrats happy. Ahh, so much fun I had rubbing it into the faces of my republican government classmates.

[Jetsetlemming]

Um, I'm not sure what that has to do with your quote of me, Angelyne. ^^; I was responding to 17's teacher telling him to drop his previous political biases and take a "realist" view.
You're right, though.

[Angelyne]

It wasn't in response to you, just quoted that because I agreed with it.

On a related note:

John Mccain Falls Asleep During the State of the Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkkTFVIxMQs&eurl=)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Plekto]

I saw that. Sweet.
Ted Kennedy looksed like he had a migrane listening to the blather.
Clinton looked like she'd rather be at the dentist.
Pelosi(sp?) looked like she was about to spit something up from an upset stomach by the second half.

In fact, half of the people where in a foggy daze from the blather. Blah Blah Blah... *snoring* - oh ... clap clap clap - Blah Blah Blah...

And, in every single SOTN speech since we've been taking polls, the %age of support has gone up a little bit. Thsi time - it dropped 6 points immediately, which means that's effectively a 12% hit among even hard-core Republicans(because with 34%, all the Democrats and other parties already loathe him before this/count as negative votes to begin with) Now, he's at 27% - and he has another year to survive. Next year's SOTN adress is going to be probably booed - I can see a 10-15% approval rating by then.

[Anders]

There are few sentences that make me laugh every time I hear them. "The state of the Union is strong" is one of them. It killed me to hear that at the very end of Jr.'s speech last night.

One question for the man though, If you want to increase funding to allow 20,000 more troops to go to Iraq, where is the money going to come from?
If you want to increase funding for education and health care, where is the money coming from?
If you want to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit, where is the money coming from?

One last question Mr. President, where is the money going to come from, when you pledge to not raise taxes?

[Jetsetlemming]

Because the more money the populace has, the more money they spend thus increasing tax revenue, and the more they spend, the more profits businesses make, the more taxes from THAT goes to the government.

[NERD]

If you want to increase funding to allow 20,000 more troops to go to Iraq, where is the money going to come from?
If you want to increase funding for education and health care, where is the money coming from?
If you want to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit, where is the money coming from?

One last question Mr. President, where is the money going to come from, when you pledge to not raise taxes?

Because the more money the populace has, the more money they spend thus increasing tax revenue, and the more they spend, the more profits businesses make, the more taxes from THAT goes to the government.

Sending more troops, increased funding for education/health care do not put the money in the hands of the population directly. In the long run maybe, but in order to secure the budget to meet the demands of such proposals before the end of Bush's term, the most likely scenario would be either borrowing money from outside of US- which would not help to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit, or simply raise taxes.

The economy has not been hot for the last few years either. Interestingly enough, the recession from 1980's was what cost George H.W. Bush's re-election efforts back in 1992, not Gulf War. However, Dubya is not having much success in Iraq/Afghanistan.

[Jetsetlemming]

I was responding directly to Anders's question:
"One last question Mr. President, where is the money going to come from, when you pledge to not raise taxes?"
Obviously waging war doesn't help the budget. I mean, they would in the middle ages when the armies would bring back spoils and land and slaves. >_> Considering our goals have nothing to do with making OURSELVES better, but rather solving another problem...
Have funding for education programs been increased? I'm constantly hearing about how teachers need more money and new computers and new textbooks.
Oh, and you don't need to raise taxes to increase tax revenue. The point of Bush's economic policy has been to raise tax revenue by improving the economy, thus having more taxable profits made and more taxable dollars spent. This is quite a slow process for the most part but definitely is showing promise. Would you ever expect that cutting taxes during wartime would work, ever? Not only are we holding our own, we've been improving lately, and the only shortages or price hikes we've experienced have had nothing to do with the war, but rather have been centered around a few unfortunate natural disasters (Katrina, the recent frost in Florida killing the citrus crops, for a couple examples).

[NERD]

Oh, and you don't need to raise taxes to increase tax revenue. The point of Bush's economic policy has been to raise tax revenue by improving the economy, thus having more taxable profits made and more taxable dollars spent. This is quite a slow process for the most part but definitely is showing promise. Would you ever expect that cutting taxes during wartime would work, ever? Not only are we holding our own, we've been improving lately, and the only shortages or price hikes we've experienced have had nothing to do with the war, but rather have been centered around a few unfortunate natural disasters (Katrina, the recent frost in Florida killing the citrus crops, for a couple examples).

That sounds very optimistic, given that the economy has not been improving, and I have to ask which signs you are seeing. Though those natural disasters you've mentioned have affected the economy, they did not have the same effect as the rising cost of oil- which single-handedly has been responsible for decline in the US auto manufacturers and the airlines struggling. Those two are some of the biggest industries in the US, and the cost of oil going up no doubt drives the overall prices of virtually any product manufactured in the US, as the price of oil directly affects the cost of shipping. Couple that with the continuing weakness of the dollar, I fail to see the basis of your optimism.

Honestly, I hope Bush can really improve the economy. I really do. But I really doubt it.

[Kass]

Actually, many of the leading economic indicators are are improving, including oil is back down around $50 per barrel, jobless claims are down and the real estate markets for new and existing homes are up. Astonishingly enough, economists are actually predicting that the DC metro area market will be on fire again soon after its recent crash and burn, which was really a LONG overdue correction in one of the country's most grossly overpriced markets. (I don't think there was another area in the country where the average time on market for an existing home was three-four days. I routinely saw homes go on sale in my neighborhood that had "contract pending" signs the same day they went on the market. Apartments that were only 1,100 square feet would go condo and sell for $300,000 or more within days. It was insane.)

Also, the biggest single impact on the price of oil right now is the weather. The warm weather in the Eastern US is almost solely responsible for driving the price of oil back down.The Midatlantic/Northeast is the biggest heating oil market in the US. Demand for gasoline is also lower according to reports released yesterday. For the first time in decades, Americans are driving less. (Gotta love news radio.)

People longing for some sort of meteoric rise in the economy will be holding their breath for an extremely long time. Very rapid, very steep jumps in economic indicators are always a bad sign. They are invariably followed by a recession. Steady, slow growth is a far more preferable way to grow an economy. Our economy really isn't in bad shape. Is it in stellar shape? No. Could it be better? Yes. Things can always be better.

[Jetsetlemming]

Kass answered that pretty well. :) We're doing far better than you'd expect for a country in a quagmire war that's had a number of natural disasters, including a few huge hurricanes, in recent times.

[Trump]

The housing market in Orlando was very close to that for a little while. There was waiting lists and lotteries for new developments. While there are normally ~12k units on the market, for a while they were down to around ~3k. You had to buy a place the first time you saw it or it wouldn't be there when you got back. Prices were skyrocketing, and they are almost to the level you describe. The condo market is oversaturated though and many complexes are going back to apartments if they can.

Anyway, about the speech, I got the impression Bush wanted to cut programs that were high cost with low impact. Smart spending he called it? That's how he wanted to save money. Of course there were no specifics though.

[Mastiker]

You don't earn an approval rating on par with Nixon by doing nothing.

Oh, I'm sure it's possible to get a bad approval rating by doing nothing :innocent:

Sadly, that's all I got to add :box:

[Roxie]

jobless claims are down
However, that doesn't exactly mean that there are less jobless. Just less ppl claiming unemployement benefits. Just a general FYI

[Kass]

No kidding, really? I never said otherwise. It also means that as more people enter the job market, more people are getting jobs, otherwise the claims wouldn't go down. They would either remain stagant or increase. It is also one of the leading economic indicators and is largely held to be a very accurate indication of the strength of the economy.

As well, a National Association of Business Economics survey this week showed that more than one-third of corporate execs intend to increase their payroll in the coming year, either by higher wages or additional hires. Unemployment is unlikely to increase if that holds true.

As well, Bloomberg.com, a reliable economic news source, indicates that there is a labor shortage in this country, which is also driving wages up. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=adWDWauvdscI&refer=news

The share citing a shortage of unskilled labor rose to 8 percent last quarter, the survey showed. Over the previous four quarters, that portion had not exceeded 4 percent.

Like it or not, more people are getting jobs.

[Angelyne]

Like it or not, more people are getting jobs.

Where? Wal-Mart? Mcdonalds? Most of the new jobs being created are low paying retail with few benefits. That isn't exactly a good thing.

Oh, I'm sure it's possible to get a bad approval rating by doing nothing

To get one as low as Bush and Nixon's, you pretty much need to go out of your way to piss people off.

[Roxie]

No kidding, really? I never said otherwise.
I never said that you did!
As you see, I did say "general FYI" meaning Information for the General Populus.

Chill out, sheesh.

[Kass]

Where? Wal-Mart? Mcdonalds? Most of the new jobs being created are low paying retail with few benefits. That isn't exactly a good thing.


Anyone working and earning income is a good thing. You can't seriously be implying that it is better to be unemployed than to work at Wal-Mart or McDs? That makes no sense at all. Someone has to work at Wal-Mart. Not everyone can be the next Bill Gates or a neurosurgeon.

Now, if you'd like to ensure that no new Wal-Marts or fast food chains ever open up in your area to hire hundreds of people, force them to provide benefits beyond their ability to pay for them and turn a profit. Wal-Mart could afford to do a little better with out raising prices, but fast food restaurants are fanchises. They are small businesses whose owners pay a (nauseatingly high) fee to the corporation to use the name. A local McDonalds isn't a corporate branch, but rather is owned by someone who hires 20-50 people.

Actually, if you had read what I posted and the article I linked to, there is a growing unskilled labor shortage, probabaly in some small part because a lot of people think they are too good to work at places like Wal-Mart and McDonalds. Most new jobs are high skill, technology-related (not just computers, but all advanced tech) careers. In the last five years, my company has added more than 1,000 new jobs and not one of them was unskilled. We're adding a minimum 100 this year and likely 200 again. (That is typical amongst technology consulting companies, which do nearly all the tech work for the government now.) The jobs that take the longest to fill are admin assistants, secretaries and other low-/unskilled labor positions.

[TygressVirgo]

Anyone working and earning income is a good thing. You can't seriously be implying that it is better to be unemployed than to work at Wal-Mart or McDs? That makes no sense at all. Someone has to work at Wal-Mart. Not everyone can be the next Bill Gates or a neurosurgeon.

Now, if you'd like to ensure that no new Wal-Marts or fast food chains ever open up in your area to hire hundreds of people, force them to provide benefits beyond their ability to pay for them and turn a profit. Wal-Mart could afford to do a little better with out raising prices, but fast food restaurants are fanchises. They are small businesses whose owners pay a (nauseatingly high) fee to the corporation to use the name. A local McDonalds isn't a corporate branch, but rather is owned by someone who hires 20-50 people.

Actually, if you had read what I posted and the article I linked to, there is a growing unskilled labor shortage, probabaly in some small part because a lot of people think they are too good to work at places like Wal-Mart and McDonalds. Most new jobs are high skill, technology-related (not just computers, but all advanced tech) careers. In the last five years, my company has added more than 1,000 new jobs and not one of them was unskilled. We're adding a minimum 100 this year and likely 200 again. (That is typical amongst technology consulting companies, which do nearly all the tech work for the government now.) The jobs that take the longest to fill are admin assistants, secretaries and other low-/unskilled labor positions.

QFT . . . . . . . .

[Angelyne]

Anyone working and earning income is a good thing. You can't seriously be implying that it is better to be unemployed than to work at Wal-Mart or McDs? That makes no sense at all. Someone has to work at Wal-Mart. Not everyone can be the next Bill Gates or a neurosurgeon.

Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and most retail don't pay enough to provide a comfortable living for a family, and their benefits, if they exist, are dismal. Wal-Mart actually has programs that teach their employees how to leech state-funded healthcare and welfare programs, which means state tax dollars are used to subsidize Wal-Mart's shitty treatment of their employees. And let's not even start a debate on the predatory tactics Wal-Mart uses to drive small businesses into the ground, causing more unemployment than the jobs actually created by the Wal-Mart.

These aren't the types of jobs that we should be creating. A few decades ago, jobs paid enough and even provided benefits so that the income of one parent could support an entire family. When you got a job, you could expect to keep it until retirement. What happened to that? Why has it degenerated to the point where people are happy that there is now a new McDonalds to work at? Furthermore, with the number of skilled jobs being shipped overseas, it means that there are fewer jobs requiring skilled labor available. Once again, it's not a good thing to be losing skilled jobs that pay $50k-$100k with benefits and replacing them with $20k-$30k jobs with welfare.



Actually, if you had read what I posted and the article I linked to, there is a growing unskilled labor shortage, probabaly in some small part because a lot of people think they are too good to work at places like Wal-Mart and McDonalds. Most new jobs are high skill, technology-related (not just computers, but all advanced tech) careers. In the last five years, my company has added more than 1,000 new jobs and not one of them was unskilled. We're adding a minimum 100 this year and likely 200 again. (That is typical amongst technology consulting companies, which do nearly all the tech work for the government now.) The jobs that take the longest to fill are admin assistants, secretaries and other low-/unskilled labor positions.

Secretaries and low-skilled labor can't afford to live in Fairfax County (at least not without a few hour commute from a place with affordable housing, at which point, the gas cost and stress make the job not worth taking). It has nothing to do with people "being too good" to take a low-skill job, it has everything to do with the fact that the poor people who could use those jobs can't access them.

And the DC area's job boom does not reflect job trends across the country as a whole.