• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

State of the Union Address

GySgt said:
The point, Einstein, is that until our government and a President publicly identified this, it did not matter who was screaming it.

Bill Clinton identified the need for new sources of energy. He tried to craft policies to support this belief. Many in congress have pushed for a different energy policy. One that isn't so dependent on oil. Just because they failed to pass legislation does not diminish their contribution. It also puts them at the forefront of this issue, not Bush. Bush has not been providing leadership on energy. Hopefully this is about to change.
 
AndrewC said:
Bill Clinton identified the need for new sources of energy. He tried to craft policies to support this belief. Many in congress have pushed for a different energy policy. One that isn't so dependent on oil. Just because they failed to pass legislation does not diminish their contribution. It also puts them at the forefront of this issue, not Bush. Bush has not been providing leadership on energy. Hopefully this is about to change.


Yes, but once again, you miss the point. The point is that this President publicly identified the fact that we receive our oil from unstable regions and countries. He went on to point out the Middle East and that we need to get away from it. This was significant, because in the past, our government has always refrained from speaking out against the Middle East as a problem, because of our oil needs. This is also significant, because where ever we get our oil, we have had to create controversy for ourselves with those host nation for our oil stability. Now that the leader of the free world has finally said it....there's no turning back. Our government can no longer withdraw into the appeasing - turn the other way - comfortable blindess it has always been in. Radical Islam has grown and spread as we are pointed out as their scapegoat by their Mullahs and elite, because of our "addiction" to oil.

This is where it needed to start and it needed to be stated by a President publicly. Do you get it now? It's not about what Presdient said what and what Political Party is in office. The real world problems that we face do not care if our President is a Republican or a Democrat, because our actions abroad to keep our oil supply stable in SA and the Middle East have involved Presidents from both parties over a long period of time.
 
Last edited:
That is great, GySgt, he did what he was supposed to do years ago before the Second Iraq War. That doesn't make it a great accomplishment, it means taht he is finally realizing that he has to redefine his presidency and this is the first step for him.

Now, I was disturbed by the linking of calls for withdrawl with isolationism and anti-patriotism. I understand why he did it, but that doesn't make it right.
 
ShamMol said:
Now, I was disturbed by the linking of calls for withdrawl with isolationism and anti-patriotism. I understand why he did it, but that doesn't make it right.

I believe it really comes down to the motive for wanting to withraw from Iraq. If all people care about is America, then I can she how this statement might apply. In my opinion, a true American would also be concerned with the Iriaqis plight as well as our own.
 
Many in congress have pushed for a different energy policy.

If Andrew and ShamMol want to bring up the history of calls for 'different' energy policies, then they should not stop at Clinton. There have been both Presidential and congressional calls for a 'national energy policy' going back to the early '70s, even before the first Arab Oil Embargo.

Such calls are nothing new. It has, over the years, been, as usual, a game of politicians of all stripes seeking partisan advantage and of special interest groups pushing their own self-serving agendas. The fervor has diminished in times of low oil prices and increased in times of high oil prices. It wasn't new with Clinton; it isn't new with Bush. Commensurately, over the years, Congress has periodically voted funds for R&D into alternative energy sources, but never in amounts sufficient to provide any fundamental change in the mix of our energy usage. Occasional calls for a 'Manhattan Project' for energy have flared then died.

OPEC learned to play the industrialized world - mainly the US - like a fiddle: following the lessons of the oil embargos, they knew that we knew the consequences of tolerating a high price versus denial of availability. As long as crude was merely expensive, our economies continued to function, albeit at perhaps a more modest pace. But if unavailable, our economies risked stopping dead in their tracks. But in that event, so too did their revenues. The strategy has been clear: keep crude oil production levels low enough to keep prices high but consistent with availability. In other words, keeping the oil dependent economies going while extracting the maximum amount of revenue.

To be sure, one cannot really blame the oil producers for such a strategy; it is the only strategy that maximizes their benefit from a finite resource. Cutting off availability permanently would invite military action to regain access; prices too high encourage more aggresive conservation and research into alternatives.

But there are now major differences in the circumstances surrounding the issue: one, a major ME oil producer governed by religous fanatics is determined to become a nuclear power; two, a major South American oil producer is becoming consistently more belligerent toward the US; three, radical Islam has declared war on the US; and four, rapid growth in oil demand from an emergent Chinese economy. A dangerous situation: supplies of crude are now less assured and competition for existing supplies is increasing.

Fortunately for us, those years of bits and pieces of underfunded research have produced a handful of very promising technologies. Now, we actually know how to reduce our dependence on crude, but so far, only in laboratory or experimental scale. We now need implementation. We need to learn how to scale up those experimental successes to economy-wide applications. Given the changed, more tenuous, circumstances, now is the time to put away those partisan inclinations and get something done.
 
ShamMol said:
That is great, GySgt, he did what he was supposed to do years ago before the Second Iraq War. That doesn't make it a great accomplishment, it means taht he is finally realizing that he has to redefine his presidency and this is the first step for him.

Now, I was disturbed by the linking of calls for withdrawl with isolationism and anti-patriotism. I understand why he did it, but that doesn't make it right.


Aside from any personal Presidential gain, this was a big step for our government. I'm drawing comparisons to our intel world. Throughout much of the 90s, intelligence personnel were not quite forbidden to consider religion as a strategic factor, but the issue was considered soft and potentially embarrassing in those years of epidemic political correctness. Now, of course, religion may be discussed in intelligence circles, if bracketed with careful disclaimers noting that all religions have problems and that we are not bigoted toward any one religion. And the reason it is easier discussed today is because 9/11 blew it up in our faces and forced us to look at reality instead of pandering to this notion that all people are free to practice their religions, no matter if their Radicals are using it to murder. Likewise, Until President Bush said what he said last night, our government was still willing to look the other way with regards to our ties to oil, unstable regions (Middle East), and Islamic Radicalism. Hopefully this changes that, because until the powers that be, stop and focus on it, it is going to go on.

One of my hang ups with President Bush has always been his uncanny ability to speak of freedom and democracy while refraining from directing those things as the solution to a bigger problem....the bigger threat....the bigger picture. I understand that political diplomacy must resume during these times, but until we are willing to face the reality, nothing progresses.

The Middle East has stagnated on every front and they do not progress. They have been left behind by history and look at their civilization. There is also a lesson about state and religion in here. Americans who sincerely believe that a remarriage of government and religion is just what the cosmic doctor ordered should be very careful whgat they wish for, since states wed to single religions consistently find the relationship is bad for both the religion and the state (Although profitable to demagogues, as Iran.) The practice of religion is always most free where its relationship with government is least adhesive, and, in every society, those who wish to impose one religion's dominance on the state tend to be authoritarian in disposition.

In one of the many ironies of history, two great religions have swapped places over the last half mellinium, with Christianity breaking free of midieval intellectual and social repression, while the once-effervescent world of Islam has embraced the comforts of shackles and ignorance. Today, at least, the Judeo-Christian world faces forward, while the Islamic world looks backward with longing and wallows in comforting myths.

While not "politically-correct," this is the reality and this is what our government better start acknowledging publicly to its people. Make no mistake, for a U.S. President to finally speak of the Middle East and our need to get away from their oil, it is a great accomplishment. However, as long as we are married to this failing civilization for our oil needs and our citizens remain ignorant or naive, we will continue to wear rose tinted glasses and the problems we face with regards to Radical Islamic terrorism will continue to get worse.
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
I liked the part where, when Bush mentioned that his Social Security initiative had been rejected, Hillary jumped up and down, dancing with glee in an “in your face” gesture and when she and the other Democrats stopped being so disrespectful and sat back down, he pointedly said we need to end the partisan politics on the issue and work together to fix it.

It really made her look like she takes more pride in being an obstructionist than actually solving problems. She looked pretty radical at that moment and I was almost embarrassed for her.


Yes the Dems care about America. When something critical needs to be passed and he said it didn't get passed they cheered.

I wonder if Bush said something about the War in Iraq going bad, if the Left would stand up and clap for that...
 
Paul said:
Yes the Dems care about America. When something critical needs to be passed and he said it didn't get passed they cheered.

I wonder if Bush said something about the War in Iraq going bad, if the Left would stand up and clap for that...

Don't you see, it's not about caring what's good or what's bad for America. All the Democrat party in Congress nowadays cares about is showing up the President and the office of such. If you don't have an agenda of your own, the only way to get people to accept your policies is to demonize the other person.
 
Paul said:
Yes the Dems care about America. When something critical needs to be passed and he said it didn't get passed they cheered.

I wonder if Bush said something about the War in Iraq going bad, if the Left would stand up and clap for that...

Because his Social Security privatization program was a terrible idea that would have ****ed over a whole lot of people and screwed with the system as a whole - they were right to clap for the dismissal of a bad policy.
 
Engimo said:
Because his Social Security privatization program was a terrible idea that would have ****ed over a whole lot of people and screwed with the system as a whole - they were right to clap for the dismissal of a bad policy.

But then they were totally devoid of sound ideas to offer as alternatives or leadership on the problem. As John Dean said, "we don't have to offer a program or policies, we're not the party in power". With that kind of attitude, they won't be in power for a long time - thank goodness.

Regardless of whether you thought Bush's ideas were good or bad, Bush at least had the courage to propose something and try to get a dialogue going on a very important topic.
 
Last edited:
Engimo said:
Because his Social Security privatization program was a terrible idea that would have ****ed over a whole lot of people and screwed with the system as a whole - they were right to clap for the dismissal of a bad policy.

Ok, well then, lets firstly stipulate that the Presidents SS Plan is bunk. Even if that's true, the Democrats just didn't clap, they jumped up for joy not for the dismissal of a bad policy, but to show up and embarrass the President and hence, disrespect the office of the President.

Secondly, what is the Democrat plan for the securing and fixing of Social Security? Do they have one? This certainly isn't a problem that has recently come to light, this has been a storm brewing for a long time that everyone has seen.
 
Paul said:
Yes the Dems care about America. When something critical needs to be passed and he said it didn't get passed they cheered.

I wonder if Bush said something about the War in Iraq going bad, if the Left would stand up and clap for that...

What you seem to avoid taking into account is that the SS reform act cuts benefits so that only the wealthy can retire nicely. The Dems had taken into account all the people that they represent before rejecting the flawed SS reform act.

If Bush really took SS seriously he would raise taxes. This would easily take care the SS and healthcare crisis this nation currently faces. It would also be able to fund the trillion dollar war that is becoming less and less affordable.
 
Last edited:
Che said:
What you seem to avoid taking into account is that the SS reform pack cuts benefits so that only the wealthy can retire nicely. The Dems had taken into account all the people that they before rejecting to pass a flawed SS reform act.

Sorry, would you mind explaining that a little more? I have no clue as to what you are referring.
 
reaganburch said:
Ok, well then, lets firstly stipulate that the Presidents SS Plan is bunk. Even if that's true, the Democrats just didn't clap, they jumped up for joy not for the dismissal of a bad policy, but to show up and embarrass the President and hence, disrespect the office of the President.

Secondly, what is the Democrat plan for the securing and fixing of Social Security? Do they have one? This certainly isn't a problem that has recently come to light, this has been a storm brewing for a long time that everyone has seen.

The job of the opposition party, traditionally, is not to necessarily provide alternatives to the majority party but rather to criticize the flaws in what the majority party is proposing. Yes, it would be nice if the Democrats would come out with a better Social Security reform proposition, but that does not make their criticism of Bush's plan any less legitimate. A bad policy is a bad policy, regardless of whether or not you have an alternative proposition.
 
Engimo said:
The job of the opposition party, traditionally, is not to necessarily provide alternatives to the majority party but rather to criticize the flaws in what the majority party is proposing. Yes, it would be nice if the Democrats would come out with a better Social Security reform proposition, but that does not make their criticism of Bush's plan any less legitimate. A bad policy is a bad policy, regardless of whether or not you have an alternative proposition.

If the opposition party doesn't need to offer an alternative to something the majority party puts across, why then ask for compromise on something? Doesn't compromise mean, generally, meeting in the middle, giving & taking, something like that? If the Democrats don't have an alternative, how can they ask for compromise? There IS no middle in that case... There is the majority party view and then there is.... that's it...
 
oldreliable67 said:
Sorry, would you mind explaining that a little more? I have no clue as to what you are referring.

my bad, I posted fast so I forgot a couple of words. I edited if you want to take a look.

basically what I'm trying to say is that the that the way Bush is trying to fix SS is by cutting benefits to a point where SS doesn't really help pay the cost of living for a senior citizen. If he raised taxes, then he'd be able to make SS the benificial program that it's supposed to be. He'd also be able to clear the deficit and pay for the war.
 
reaganburch said:
If the opposition party doesn't need to offer an alternative to something the majority party puts across, why then ask for compromise on something? Doesn't compromise mean, generally, meeting in the middle, giving & taking, something like that? If the Democrats don't have an alternative, how can they ask for compromise? There IS no middle in that case... There is the majority party view and then there is.... that's it...

Compromise in coming up with new legislation, perhaps? That wasn't my point, though. I was just saying that the fact that the Democrats have yet to present their own Social Security reform package does not mean that they are not allowed to criticize the one that Bush is putting out. Saying "Well, unless you can come up with something better, shut up!" is counterproductive and silly.
 
Che said:
my bad, I posted fast so I forgot a couple of words. I edited if you want to take a look.

basically what I'm trying to say is that the that the way Bush is trying to fix SS is by cutting benefits to a point where SS doesn't really help pay the cost of living for a senior citizen. If he raised taxes, then he'd be able to make SS the benificial program that it's supposed to be. He'd also be able to clear the deficit and pay for the war.

I think the Presidents idea to fix SS was being able to put a percentage of your SS in a private savings account and has nothing to do with cutting benefits...........I know if I was a young man I would jump at the chance for a private savings account...............Clinton said in 1998 that SS was broken and needed fixed.........Now because a Republican is saying the same thing all the dems are playing partinship politics andd are against it......what else is new?:roll:
 
Navy Pride said:
I think the Presidents idea to fix SS was being able to put a percentage of your SS in a private savings account and has nothing to do with cutting benefits

many don't have the high paying jobs that are needed to retire based on a savings account. The plan was shot down because it didn't cater to all of America's senior citizens.
 
Engimo said:
Compromise in coming up with new legislation, perhaps? That wasn't my point, though. I was just saying that the fact that the Democrats have yet to present their own Social Security reform package does not mean that they are not allowed to criticize the one that Bush is putting out. Saying "Well, unless you can come up with something better, shut up!" is counterproductive and silly.

Compromise in anything for that matter... However, if they cannot state their views to the American people, how in the world can they get elected? "Vote for me, I don't have a platform but I'm better than that guy" doesn't cut it in the higher intellectual arena of ideas.

Now, I know I didn't say and I certainly didn't imply that if the Democrats couldn't come up with anything better than shut up. What I did criticize was their method, which was obviously meant to upstage and embarrass the President of the United States of America and hence disrespect the office.

Let's all try and elevate the tone and get things done together instead of upstaging, embarrassing, disrespecting, misrepresenting the other. And, yes, both parties do it... To use your words, all of it is counterproductive & silly, I agree
 
Engimo said:
The job of the opposition party, traditionally, is not to necessarily provide alternatives to the majority party but rather to criticize the flaws in what the majority party is proposing. Yes, it would be nice if the Democrats would come out with a better Social Security reform proposition, but that does not make their criticism of Bush's plan any less legitimate. A bad policy is a bad policy, regardless of whether or not you have an alternative proposition.

As the November mid-term elections approach, the Dems darned well better start articulating some alternative policy proposals instead of merely re-iterating criticisms. If they can't offer any alternatives, voters will have to choose'em on their looks alone. Too bad.
 
Navy Pride said:
I think the Presidents idea to fix SS was being able to put a percentage of your SS in a private savings account and has nothing to do with cutting benefits...........I know if I was a young man I would jump at the chance for a private savings account...............Clinton said in 1998 that SS was broken and needed fixed.........Now because a Republican is saying the same thing all the dems are playing partinship politics andd are against it......what else is new?:roll:

Come on, Navy Pride, for Bush it was all about "My way or the highway." He had no interest in hearing about any other ideas about how to fix SS. So he wasted the taxpayer's money running around and trying to sell his plan. I love that it was a huge flop and that NO ONE was buying his horse$hit.
 
Che said:
many don't have the high paying jobs that are needed to retire based on a savings account. The plan was shot down because it didn't cater to all of America's senior citizens.

Hmmmmm, I never had a real high paying job but I did a little research awhile back and if I would have been able to put a small portion of my SS in safe Certificates of Deposits in 1972 I would have realized and average 7% interest return on my investment instead of the 1% SS yeilds now making me a multi millionaire......:confused:
 
I watched the entire State of the Union speech, and I must say...I thought Bush did a commendable job. Let's face it...Bush is not exactly the toastmaster of the decade. I think he hates giving these speeches? But overall, I thought he pulled it off.

Of course, many of his comments were the type that no one, regardless of political persuasion, would not applaud.

My one real objection was his promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009, and those of us 'in the know,' realize he does not count the projected 2 trillion that will be spent on these MidEast wars in that deficit...so, again, it's a misleading statement, in fact, an outright falsehood.

His talk about alternative energy is 5 years too late. I don't believe it.

In fact, I think it was the type of speech that a week from now, no one will remember a word he said. But again, for Bush, I thought he did an ok job on the speech...especially considering the year the nation has had under his command.
 
How short our memories are. GWB NEVER put a firm, final Social Security proposal on the table. He has all his 'Town Hall' staged meetings around the country to garner up support and failed miserably and just kinda let it die.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California indicated they were open to idea of offering proposals to strengthen Social Security. But first they want Bush to lay his cards on the table in the form of a specific proposal.

“I’m tried of hearing all this posturing from the president,” complained Reid. “Let’s see him put something in paper for a change, rather than using his pulpit to speak.”


Remember the Republican bankruptcy bill? (AKA Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) That's a good one...Consumer Protection!!

Here are some amendments proposed by Democrats and rejected by Republicans (to be fair on some amendments some Democrats also voted against them)

Schumer Amdt. No. 42; To limit the exemption for asset protection trusts.
(limit the free ride given in this legislation to people who are rich enough to put their assets in a "protected trust)

Durbin Amdt. No. 49; To protect employees and retirees from corporate practices that deprive them of their earnings and retirement savings when a business files for bankruptcy.
(sole Democrat to vote against this proposed amendment was Sen. Nelson)

Durbin Amdt. No. 38; To discourage predatory lending practices.
(The ones with the 21% interest and the late fees and the renewal fees and the arbitrary increases in interest. Banks can't do it, credit card companies, however, can)

Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 37; To exempt debtors from means testing if their financial problems were caused by identity theft.
(all Republican Senators voted against the amendment, along with Democrats Nelson (NE), Johnson, and Carper)

Corzine Amdt. No. 32; To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

Kennedy Amdt. No. 28.; To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing.

Kennedy Amdt. No. 29; To provide protection for medical debt homeowners

Feingold Amdt. No. 17.; To provide a homestead floor for the elderly

Durbin Amdt. No. 16, As Modified.; To protect service members and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence


You know, you get told and shown that your cooperation is not wanted or desired, at some point you just quit beating your head against the wall. This doesn't mean you quit trying, you just don't do it with as much enthusiasm.
 
Back
Top Bottom