Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Why????
Why wasn't this speech given--in earnest--back in 2004 or 2005?
That said, I strongly encourage everyone to read President Bush's State of the Union Speech. Read it in its full context, without the help of rebuttals or the media's summaries. And reply in the comments what you think.
Needless to say, it is clear where everyone on this blog stands in regards to general politics. But I am curious to see what everyone HONESTLY thinks of the verbatim speech.
Holla!
That said, I strongly encourage everyone to read President Bush's State of the Union Speech. Read it in its full context, without the help of rebuttals or the media's summaries. And reply in the comments what you think.
Needless to say, it is clear where everyone on this blog stands in regards to general politics. But I am curious to see what everyone HONESTLY thinks of the verbatim speech.
Holla!
Comments:
<< Home
I think the State of the Union is one of the most difficult and frustrating things to watch on television due to the standing O's and applause after every point. I mean really, how hard is it to hold your applause until the end?
Agreed. And the unintentional comedy of Dikembe chillin with Laura was through the roof.
I understand (and honestly appreciate) what Mutumbo has done for his home country, and for charities here in the States.
But I KNOW I wasn't the only one who was waiting for him during the standing O to belt out a "Who wants to sex Mutumbo???"
I understand (and honestly appreciate) what Mutumbo has done for his home country, and for charities here in the States.
But I KNOW I wasn't the only one who was waiting for him during the standing O to belt out a "Who wants to sex Mutumbo???"
He couldn't be more out of touch with American people on Iraq. It's not possible.
It was refreshing to see him finally not reeking of invincibility for once. I hope he's serious about healthcare and energy, but I'll believe it from a Republican administration when I see it. Seems to be one of those things they mention in speeches to make the masses think they care that they will never follow through on. I am willing to give his health insurance plan a chance, however.
I thought it was a pretty weak speech. I haven't talked to anyone that was particularly moved. Nothing in it made me think that anything will change regarding this guy and his out of touch cronies. They just don't get it.
It was refreshing to see him finally not reeking of invincibility for once. I hope he's serious about healthcare and energy, but I'll believe it from a Republican administration when I see it. Seems to be one of those things they mention in speeches to make the masses think they care that they will never follow through on. I am willing to give his health insurance plan a chance, however.
I thought it was a pretty weak speech. I haven't talked to anyone that was particularly moved. Nothing in it made me think that anything will change regarding this guy and his out of touch cronies. They just don't get it.
I totally disagree with your assessment on health care. Just because Republicans do not believe in making health care an even more beauricratic mess by federalizing it. Republicans--like Social Security--believe in privitization.
For proof that privitization most certainly can work, please see: Florida, State of.
For proof that privitization most certainly can work, please see: Florida, State of.
For proof that federalization works see: Canada, Country of; or Sweden, Country of.
One must make a pretty big leap to assume that federalization=bureaucratic mess. That basically implies that our military, revenue service (gets a lot of crap but is for the most part manageable), Census Bureau, FBI, CIA, and countless other things would be better off privatized. I can hardly see how that could be true.
Privatizing things such as healthcare and social security will only increase the already mind-boggling gap between the haves and have-nots. But, who are we kidding? That's what Republicans really believe in.
One must make a pretty big leap to assume that federalization=bureaucratic mess. That basically implies that our military, revenue service (gets a lot of crap but is for the most part manageable), Census Bureau, FBI, CIA, and countless other things would be better off privatized. I can hardly see how that could be true.
Privatizing things such as healthcare and social security will only increase the already mind-boggling gap between the haves and have-nots. But, who are we kidding? That's what Republicans really believe in.
No, privatizing things such as health care and social security do the exact opposite. They cause competition and drive down prices, Pete. It is simple economics, and you know it. Offering people choice causes higher levels of service for less of a cost.
It does not mean that there is no federal/state help for less fortunate people--it means they get that money and are able to choose what to do with it.
What is it with Democrats always assuming that THEY know how best to spend money of others?
It does not mean that there is no federal/state help for less fortunate people--it means they get that money and are able to choose what to do with it.
What is it with Democrats always assuming that THEY know how best to spend money of others?
Universal health care destroys medical advances, prevents proper individual care, and unfairly burdens the middle class with absorbing the cost.
Pete, Canada's health system is terrible. Yeah, if you crack your head open, you can go and get stitches for the $10 co-pay. Or if you get a good,nasty case of the Clap, they'll give you a shot of penicillin for that same $10. But that's where the benefits of a universal system really stop. Their oncology, cardiology, and neurology centers are garbage, which is why most canadians come to the US for cancer treatment, open-heart surgery, and other major medical needs.
Pete, Canada's health system is terrible. Yeah, if you crack your head open, you can go and get stitches for the $10 co-pay. Or if you get a good,nasty case of the Clap, they'll give you a shot of penicillin for that same $10. But that's where the benefits of a universal system really stop. Their oncology, cardiology, and neurology centers are garbage, which is why most canadians come to the US for cancer treatment, open-heart surgery, and other major medical needs.
The thing that I don't like about the health care reform is the tax incentive portion for people enrolled in health insurance. It seems that they are saying "we understand health insurance is over priced and ridicuilous, but we can't do anything about that, so instaed we will just give you a little extra money so you can continue to pay for the over-priced, riduculous health insurance." Why don't you fix the problem not just treat the symptoms.
I will also be interested to see how many good government programs get cut to achieve this reduction in the deficit. He keeps saying he's not going to raise taxes, and he seems to stick to his guns, but where the hell is the money going to come from.
Other than that, I would agree with GA that this speech should have been given a few years ago.
I will also be interested to see how many good government programs get cut to achieve this reduction in the deficit. He keeps saying he's not going to raise taxes, and he seems to stick to his guns, but where the hell is the money going to come from.
Other than that, I would agree with GA that this speech should have been given a few years ago.
What I meant was that by privatizing things even more you really distinguish who can pay for what luxury.
I'll use cars as an example. Let's compare General Motors to a neurosurgeon. While presumably most people can afford a Chevy Cavalier, a GM car, not everyone can afford a Cadillac, a GM car. So while the Cavaliers of the world still get a cardiologist, they certainly don't get access to the same cardiologist as the Cadillacs. Americans are notorious for paying buku bucks for "premium" goods and services when they can. Why would health care be any different?
When it comes to a meal or a car or a seat on an airplane, no problem. But when we open the market up and start dealing with health care, which I feel is a basic human right, it's a dangerous area.
And I find it fascinating that Republicans are still claiming that the Dems are the ones spending money after the last six years of Bush.
I'll use cars as an example. Let's compare General Motors to a neurosurgeon. While presumably most people can afford a Chevy Cavalier, a GM car, not everyone can afford a Cadillac, a GM car. So while the Cavaliers of the world still get a cardiologist, they certainly don't get access to the same cardiologist as the Cadillacs. Americans are notorious for paying buku bucks for "premium" goods and services when they can. Why would health care be any different?
When it comes to a meal or a car or a seat on an airplane, no problem. But when we open the market up and start dealing with health care, which I feel is a basic human right, it's a dangerous area.
And I find it fascinating that Republicans are still claiming that the Dems are the ones spending money after the last six years of Bush.
I did not see the speech. However, after an initial review of the transcript, I was a bit warmed. Warmed by the replacement of the word evil with danger. Warmed by proposals of action and not just a call to it. But, my cynicism caught up with me and I realized that all too often State of the Union addresses are rah rah bullshit pep rallies. You get the "Let's save the unicorns" sentiments. His calls for a balanced budget, reduction of dependence on gasoline, and health care reform did not fall on deaf ears. I'd love to see follow through. But, his plan (not his first) to win the war on terror I would prefer to see stay put. I don't think 21,500 soldiers' lives are worth it to give it another try.
Well, no administration has given as much to alternative fuel research, AIDS in Africa, the effort to stop genocide in Darfur, debt relief, etc.
There is plenty to be upset about with this administration. But just becasue they usually do not go out and (inexplicitly) not toot their horn that they have put more money into chairitible efforts such as the ones above than Clinton did in eight years does not make it all "rah rah bullshit pep rallies."
I will say one thing, for sure: I really appreciate how civil and level-headed all the points here in the comments have been. That is pretty awesome.
There is plenty to be upset about with this administration. But just becasue they usually do not go out and (inexplicitly) not toot their horn that they have put more money into chairitible efforts such as the ones above than Clinton did in eight years does not make it all "rah rah bullshit pep rallies."
I will say one thing, for sure: I really appreciate how civil and level-headed all the points here in the comments have been. That is pretty awesome.
Post Script: I guess they have obviously given more to the struggle in Dafur than previous administrations, seeing it did not come to a drastic point until the Bush Administration.
My point is that the war (and probably rightfully so) overshadows all the great things that they have done around the world.
My point is that the war (and probably rightfully so) overshadows all the great things that they have done around the world.
If you make your own bed, you've got to sleep in it.
And on the subject of humanitarian aid, isn't this the administration that also ties all funding to an anti-abortion commitment?
And moving more and more health care to the private market isn't going to help. People don't treat health care in a rational market driven way and market solutions aren't going to help.
Basically, the administrations plan for health care seems to be applauded by business, the reason....risk transfer. Let's get more of the risk into the individuals hand, the individual that is not necessarily equipped to handle the risk and off of the business.
And on the subject of humanitarian aid, isn't this the administration that also ties all funding to an anti-abortion commitment?
And moving more and more health care to the private market isn't going to help. People don't treat health care in a rational market driven way and market solutions aren't going to help.
Basically, the administrations plan for health care seems to be applauded by business, the reason....risk transfer. Let's get more of the risk into the individuals hand, the individual that is not necessarily equipped to handle the risk and off of the business.
Did you even read my comment? I said that those things DID NOT FALL ON DEAF EARS. I liked what I heard on most everything but the war in Iraq. And my claim that State of the Union Addresses were "rah rah bullshit pep rallies" was not Bush-centric. Every one that I've ever heard has been that way. And considering my past criticism of this administration, I feel that I was very civil and level-headed. So, pretty awesome right back at ya.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Term Papers
