main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

2003 State of the Union Reaction and Discussion Thread.

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth Mischievous, Jan 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    I thought the speech was good.

    GWB is a man of integrity, and unlike his predecessor, stands by his convictions irregardless of polling data.

    GWB could say the sky is blue, and hard-leftists would tell you it's green.

    I do not want to see a socialized health care system, and I agree with him that MD's should make decisions on health care, not HMOs.

    I also very much agree with him on tort lawyers and frivolous lawsuits.

    The Iraqi situation was adequately elaborated on, and more will come out this week and leading up to Feb. 5th when Colin Powell goes to the Security Council. Finally, we will see some action on this matter.

    I also agree with the President on the concept of hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles. I wish that there were a greater drive to get these automobiles into serious research and development, but I really don't forsee that happening in the near future unfortunately.

    I am also in 100% agreement with the President on partial-birth abortion. He was absolutely correct in this matter that these almost-born babies have value placed upon their humanity and that the law should protect them.
     
  2. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    I don't think 16 years is an incredibly long time to get a feasible hydrogen engine in a main stream auto.

    Is it a front burner issue, do or die? No, but as a side issue that isn't really that long.
     
  3. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    A side note about his whole rant about Iraq. I find it odd that, if we have proof that Iraq has WMDs and that we must force Iraq to disarm those weapons, why did Dubya go into soooo much detail about what kinds of atrocities tht are happening in Iraq? If Hussein disarms and the US doesn't invade (as the Republicans are quick to console), what becomes of the justice for all those mentioned atrocities? Nothing, nada, zippo.

    Unless... war is, in fact, a definite. Otherwise, some may see the administration as callous for not doing anything about these atrocities.


    Here's the logic:

    1) Saddam is seeking weapons of mass murder.

    2) Saddam has a consistent history of using these weapons on his own people, and of using the most appalling forms of torture to achieve his ends.

    3) Therefore, "trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
     
  4. chibiangi

    chibiangi Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    I agree on frivalous lawsuits, but when it comes to medical malpractice suits, I disagree. Are there malpractice suits that shouldn't go through? Of course, and hopefully such cases get thrown out of court.

    However, I think that limiting a patient's ability to sue for malpractice removes one of the few "checks" that patients have against doctors. Doctors are intrusted with our health and the doctors that mistreat and abuse patients should be sued into the ground and have licenses revoked. Instead of blaming patients who rightfully sue for damages when the wrong appendage gets amputated or instruments are left behind after surgery, steps should be taken to make sure that the bad doctors out there are removed from practice.

    So yes, I think my health and well-being are worth more than the $250,000 cap that has been suggested by law makers.
     
  5. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    You know, Cheveyo you may have said what I was trying to say, but couldn't phrase properly, about the Iraqi situation. Well done sport! :)

    E_S
     
  6. TripleB

    TripleB Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2000
    Cheveyo Said


    Taxes? High income Americans only.

    As a single american making about 28,000 a year, I will get more back then I am getting now.

    Medical? Only seniors who decide to use the doctors the government says is ok.

    My health insurance premiums have more then doubled in the last 4 years, with no real improvement in the quality of care. Costs that were driven up specifically because of Trial Lawyers. Did you see John Edwards when Bush talked about Tort Reforms? He knows who that was directed at, and Tort Reforms will benefit EVERY american by lowering costs.

    Deficit Spending? Get real.

    Clinton Deficit spent for his first 5 years in office.

    Faith Based Initiative? Discriminatory.

    We will let the courts decide that one.

    Job Growth? Riiight. How? From where?

    Ecnomically, we are in a much better position then we were in 1995, the first State of the Union address by clitnon after the REpublican take over. Look how the economy boomed after that?

    Environment? Was I the only one who caught the little addition to the sentence? "...and profitable." Hmmm.

    I guess so.
     
  7. Red-Seven

    Red-Seven Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 1999
    The best case for the really big environmental reforms (like emissions trading for carbon) is to use a market-based approach. This is how the problems of 'Acid Rain' were reduced significantly in a few short years in the 90's, and many feel it is the best way for programs like Kyoto to move forward. So, you can look at it cynically, or hopefully.


    A few links:


    State of the Union Tax Cut Spin
    President Bush's State of the Union address tonight prominently featured a repetition of the deceptive White House talking points about the distribution of benefits that a typical family could expect to receive from his tax cut proposal.

    Early in his speech Bush repeated a pair of misleading talking points. The President claimed that under his tax plan "92 million Americans will keep, this year, an average of almost $1,000 more of their own money. A family of four with an income of $40,000 would see their federal income taxes fall from $1,178 to $45 per year." As I have demonstrated before, however, these figures are carefully constructed to provide a misleading portrait of what a typical taxpayer near the middle of the national income distribution could expect to receive.

    The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a center-left economic think tank, calculates that under Bush's proposal a family in the middle one-fifth of the income distribution could expect to see an average of $265 cut from their taxes in 2003. A family in the next highest one-fifth of the distribution (from the 60th to the 80th percentile) could expect an average reduction of $611. Both are a far cry from the figure of $1,100 cited by the President, which is arrived at by dividing the cost of the cut by the total number of taxpayers - a method that provides a poor measure of the cuts for middle-income households (due to the large absolute value of cuts for taxpayers at the upper end of the income spectrum). Bush's theoretical family with an income of $40,000 is also misleading in that it benefits disproportionately, relative to other taxpayers of comparable income, from the reduction of the so-called marriage penalty and the child tax credit.

    Bush should, of course, campaign aggressively for his policies. That campaign, however, should not include misleading the public about what they can expect from his tax package.




    More information, for those interested, in the AIDS issues the President brought up


    Various International Reactions


    Lilek's Recap
    I?ve never cared for the SOTU speech; listening to those things was like eating a big damp pillow. Everything?s basically copacetic but it could be 7% more copacetic if we pass these carefully calibrated bills, and let me now point to that person up there who vaguely symbolizes something that made us sad for a week but now fills us with hope, etc.

    Last year was different, of course. Last year we needed a Great Speech. A barn-winder. An old fashioned stem-burner. It was more than I expected; as much as some hated the ?Axis of Evil? line, it put this big war in the context of the last one. You could boil it all down to this: HELL no. If you think you can take us down we got 57 varieties of ugly waiting for you.

    ...Compared to last year, an underwhelming speech - but the more I think about it the less that bothers me; it?s probably the right speech for the time. Hard bones to gnaw, not fresh meat you can chomp and bolt. This will be seen as the first of four speeches - the SOTU, the Bush/Blair speech, Powell?s UN speech, and Bush?s address from the Oval Office the night the war begins. I think it was written with that procession in mind, which might explain its tenor. Let me just write out loud here:

    ...The first half, the domestic half was, well, domestic. The AIDS / Africa bit was unexpected, and I?m all for it; gran
     
  8. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    I was very, very impressed by his stand on malpractice reform.

    A shining star in an otherwise not-surprising but yet not that bad speech.

    You can probably tell what will pass easily by the number of people who stood for each policy statement and how long the applause was. Longest for his potshot at the UN "we will not let others chart our course for us"; shorter than I thought on the cloning ban.

    Peace,

    V-03

    EDIT: DM, c'mon, you know that barely any late-term abortions are performed in this country ;). A ban on them is fine with me, but it will only stop about 10 of them a year. All the others are performed for medical reasons-and a law with no exception for the mother's life will not stand a legal challenge.
     
  9. JediTre11

    JediTre11 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 25, 2001
    One comment...well maybe two.

    1) The speech was predictable, like any other campaign speech made by any other candidate from any other party.

    2) Iraq is blocking U2 flights? Sure, I'll buy that. And that Ocean side property in Colorado, I'll buy that two. Even if the U2 isn't being utilized, the cameras with higher resolution in geosync orbit will suffice.

    However as an environmental voter, if he can produce some progress with the hydrogen car before election day...then I'll vote for him.
     
  10. eclipseSD

    eclipseSD Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    May 11, 2002
    GWB could say the sky is blue, and hard-leftists would tell you it's green.

    Truer words have never been spoken.
     
  11. chibiangi

    chibiangi Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    My health insurance premiums have more then doubled in the last 4 years, with no real improvement in the quality of care.

    You live in Southern California, right? Those insurance premiums are not going up because of malpractice suits. They are going up to do the influx of illegal immigrants and others who are using ERs for basic medical care and to give birth. The costs of medical care are going up due to the abuses of the system en masse.
     
  12. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    I can't swear to this as absolute fact, but using common sense wouldn't most geo synch satellites be communication and weather?

    I could of course be wrong but it would seem to me it makes more sense to put spy sattelites in a lower orbit where they cover more territory making multiple passes of large swaths of the earth a day.

    Especially if you consider there is only a limited number of Geo synch positions available.

    A plane would be much more effective
     
  13. Padawan_Learner_Yoda

    Padawan_Learner_Yoda Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jul 3, 2002
    After his emphasis on the fact that Iraq has yet to show convincing proof of their destruction of their chemical and biological weapon stores I must unfortunately agree that Saddam must be taken out.

    I've heard rhetoric before about possible Iraqi/Al-queda connections and I'm still interested to see what evidence we have that supports it. I've also heard off and on that Al-queda has a presence in Northern Iraq, but I thought that the Kurdish rebels were still a thorn in Saddam's side in that area? hmmm.

    I liked his idea about the hydrogen powered cars, but I wonder what secret deals his handlers had to make with domestic oil companies and how this is going to affect rising gas prices.

    I think that his ten year domestic plan looks bad for economic growth. Let's see not taxing dividends... remind me how many of us actually live off of this type of income again? Is it like the top 3% of us? This sounds frighteningly similiar to Reaganomics and that BS trickle-down theory. His plan might stimulate growth in the long term but my children and grandchildren will probably be paying for it. I have a secure job so I'm not worried for myself, but living out here in the West where I can count on two hands the number of friends and family that have recently lost their jobs his plan is step in the wrong direction.

    Medicare- "Sorry grandma this nice doctor who has provided you service for the past 10 years isn't in your new HMO plan just find another, oh and by the way those drugs you've been taking yeah we'd like you to try this new stuff that is cheaper and almost as good."


    I'd give Bush a B- for the foreign portion and a D for the domestic portion.
     
  14. chibiangi

    chibiangi Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    I was very, very impressed by his stand on malpractice reform.

    Is your health and well-being worth only $250,000? How about your life? 98,000 people die each year at the hands of their doctors. Many of these doctors are allowed to continue practicing medicine. The people who come accross these doctors and are physically maimed or killed by them have the right to collect damages. Frivalous lawsuits aside, capping the amount of damages for REAL lawsuits does nothing but make it easier for bad doctors to stay in practice. If medical industry were really interested in lowering the costs of malpractice insurance, they would stop with the good 'ol boy network and put their efforts toward finding and removing these bad doctors from practice.


    I have the feeling that if anyone here got suffered severely at the hands of a trusted doctor, they would most certainly seek compensation.
     
  15. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Is it like the top 3% of us?

    Just as a sidenote, the top 1% of people in the United States pay 25% of the taxes.
     
  16. Red-Seven

    Red-Seven Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 1999
    KW, I dont' know that the number you cited is accurate.

    However, numbers like that get thrown around all over the place, and bear little meaning.
     
  17. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    I read it last week in Newsweek (in their story on the economy), although I know that's not saying much to some.
     
  18. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Seven , from what I've seen as reported by the IRA the top 1% pay 1/3 the top 5% pay just over half.

    I've seen people attempting to justify this, but no one denying it.

    Furthermore these tables...(warning thick packet of numbers and confusing abbreviations ahead here

    If I may point out, the averge tax burdeon of the bottom fifty percent is less then two thousand dollars a year, most of which, in my experience, is taken directly from their pay check so they never see it.

    I could be wrong of course but that is my experience.

     
  19. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    The top 1% pay that much because they MAKE that much. They aren't being taxed any more or any less, proportionally, than the poor (unless you count tax relief).

    If they have such a big problem with giving up the money, then let them give it away and live a more menial life.

    You seem to be suggesting that the rich get tax cuts because they pay so much. Which is pretty lame logic.

    - Scarlet.
     
  20. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    <cough> scarlet, now I am not an aco****ant, but let me read this table.

    Top 1% pecent of the adjusted total income of all taxpayers... 20.8%.

    Top 1% percent of the total income tax burden... 37.4%.

    there seems to my feeble skills atleast to be a 16.6 percent difference between their share of income and their share of income tax.
     
  21. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.09% of all taxes.

    The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.)

    Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes.


    Total income tax share (percentage):

    Year: Total..................Top 1%............Top 5%.........Top 10%.......Top 25%..........Top 50%

    2000: 100.00......37.42......56.47......67.33......84.01......96.09

    Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.


     
  22. Jedi_Cougar

    Jedi_Cougar Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Bush is a real man. He has real priorities that right now involve attacking Iraq. However, the Democrats don't want to upset our European "allies" (Germany/France). As far as Russia and Chine go, we should just give them the finger if they continue to discourage us from going.

    Thank goodness if we attack, it won't be because President Bush has his personal whore on trial.


    Also, we should spend more as a country on trying to get the hydrogen thing or any other alternate fuel source to work. We will spend billions and billions on defense and homeland security (as we should), but we should also look down the road, and figure out how to get more Hybrid technology on the road, etc, to get us off of foreign oil, mostly from the Middle East it seems.
     
  23. Kit'

    Kit' Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 30, 1999
    Bush is a real man.

    No! Really? I never would have guessed! [face_shocked] :p


    He has real priorities that right now involve attacking Iraq. However, the Democrats don't want to upset our European "allies" (Germany/France). As far as Russia and Chine go, we should just give them the finger if they continue to discourage us from going.

    Because that will really encourage good inter-nation relationships.... [face_plain]


    *

    I haven't managed to work my way through the whole speech yet. I've read bits and pieces though. It was mainly met with derision and contempt in my household and in particular the parts about going to war and being a peaceful nation.

    I'd love to actually see how much of his new/outlined policies are actually implemented.

    Kithera

    Edits: Smilie codes
     
  24. JediMaster41589

    JediMaster41589 Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 19, 2002
    The description of the torture of Iraqi citizens was pretty disturbing...


     
  25. Jansons_Funny_Twin

    Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 31, 2002
    The description of the torture of Iraqi citizens was pretty disturbing...

    As it should be.

    Many people in my dorm were saying, "There are torture houses in Iraq?"

    [face_plain]

    The ignorance of some people amazes me.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.