Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by El_Guero, Jan 23, 2007.
Are you watching it?
What do you think?
"Our citizens don't much care. . . ," he done went and said it . . . He is from Texas.
I can't believe that!
I confess that I didn't. On purpose, at that. Neither did I listen to the democrat response.
I'll read a transcript later undistracted by the dog and pony show of democrats with arms folded while Republicans applaud.
This much I can tell you without watching. Bush will not back up an inch.
I haven't listened to the speech yet but I have looked at some news accounts and I have a question:
Is the health care proposal a new tax deduction or is it simply saying that they won't tax our current health care premiums up to a certain level?
I found the answer:
This health care tax credit is just like the "Alternative Minimum Tax" fraud that is in place.
Right now...many folks would see a tax break.
Later...because health care costs outpace inflation (this will be inflation-indexed), eventually, most of us will be over the "limit" and this will go from a tax break to taxable income.
The people who will really get nailed are:
-The folks with very high insurance benefits (such as executives);
-Chronically ill (high premiums);
-Older folks with private insurance;
-Those who live in high cost-of-living areas (People's republic of California, New York)
And, as we see with the Alternative Minimum Tax (originally set up to nail ultra-high income folk, it is increasingly nailing middle-class people, especially in high cost-of-living areas), the government won't adjust this as they should.
The Republicans have learned vote-buying from the Democrats quite well. They are full-speed ahead.
Having said that, I did not watch the speech. (I had done my homework on the healthcare stuff earlier.) I can't stand the disingenuous garbage...the partisan applause, the manufactured smiles. It's fake, and I hate fake. I haven't watched a state of the union speech in years for that reason.
I'll read a transcript later this week.
I watched last night and although I am a conservative I am not a very strong Bush supporter, other than I respect he stands up for what he believes and doesn't back down because of popular opinion (especially that spread and encouraged by the liberal media). I think he is the first president since Reagan to have a backbone.
The speach wasn't overly impressive but I thought with the whipping the republicans took in November that it was appropriate, moderate, and basically saying what both sides wanted to hear, especially on domestic issues, with Iraq he is still sticking to his guns for the most part, as I personally, well think he should. We don't need to go back to the days of Clinton letting Muslims attack us every 10 to 12 months and we do nothing about it but bury our dead.
I didn't watch the democratic response because for one thing no matter what Bush said, even if he went to Nancy Pelosi herself and said OK you got whatever you want, the democrats would still shoot down everything, because they want someone back there with no back bone who will cut the military and raise taxes and line their pockets and claim what a great job they have done.
All in all the speach is what was expected, nothing really exciting and new, politics as usual in Washington.
As far as health care goes, it is in shambles because it is socialistic in nature and breaking that cycle is all but impossible. People that can afford health insurance pour in huge amounts of money to pay for everyone as a whole. Insurance by nature is socialism. I don't see much of a difference if we just did switch to a socialized medical system. Do that and get rid of the insurance companies, control frivolous malpractice suits, cut the administration of hospitals by over half and you would reduce the cost of health care by more than half. Much easier said than done though. People don't like change -- People don't like their cheese moved!!
I agree with Neal Boortz that many in our government want our current healthcare system to be an abject failure. Failures would cause an outcry for the government to "fix it!" And they will fix it all right...
Just like they've fixed Social Security...
...and many of our public schools (thank God for the local folk with some sense, they keep the bureaucrats from screwing things up worse)...
OK, I'm way off topic. Sorry.
It's a dead issue. Bush is a caretaker president for the next two years. His own party has abandoned him, and he's facing a democrat Congress. He might not give an inch, but if he hopes to salvage his presidency, he will.
I am a very strong conservative, and did not watch the speech. Not interested in a thing he has to say. He is not a true conservative, and is an inept leader. On top of that, as said above, the next two years his decisions will be meaningless, as his time for accomplishments is over. He created his own fate. And yes, he will give an inch, on January 20, 2009, he will give several hundred miles back to Texas, and dont let the door hit you on the way out.
Here is my State of the Union address...
Now for the foreign policy... Double SNAFU
The main problem with President Bush's State of the Union speech was that there was little there that someone in favor of limited, constitutional government could hang his hat on.