Gee whiz, what's your problem tonight?
Sorry,DaveLone, it's the tone of this whole thread. No analysis, just a bunch of trite remarks about people's eyes and physical looks. It's like no one listened to what the guy really said as opposed to just waiting for the end so all could cheer about how wonderful it was, when the whole speech was geared toward pleasing Dems (with the exception of the Iraq part), and absolutely nothing about the issues of the fall of moral values in our country, the need for good judges, school vouchers, abortion, religious values, lowering taxes, the corruption at the U.N., just about anything of concern to a true conservative Republican. He talked about global warming, he talked about education (the big kahuna of issues for the Dems), he talked about using the IRS and the tax system to penalize people who have good health coverage in order to finance by tax breaks those that don't (more income redistribution), he talked about all Dem issues. And no one on this thread seems capable of figuring that out. It's all the usual tripe of "I love Bush", he gave a "great speech", etc. Did anyone here even hear what he actually said? It's dismaying to say the least. But those who want to live in a dream bubble will, so I'll go elsewhere now to try to find some reality.
Thank you.
Well you keep saying that you are leaving yet you come back.....
Let's talk about that.
Talking about the fall of moral values or corruption at the UN would have been stupid with Republican Congresscritters going to jail. The President's Party has no credibility on that issue, and if you are a fair person you will realise that is not his fault, but the fault of lesser men.
He did talk about judges and the duty of the Senate to have an up-or-down vote. Again, the failure to confirm some judges (and John Bolton) is not his fault -- it's the fault of weak Republican Senators.
School Vouchers -- He tried that in 2001, but there is no real support for that in Congress. It's not going to happen, and he is far too practical a man to waste his time pushing for issues of limited interest and less support.
Abortion -- He's made his position on this issue clear time after time. He can't overrule Roe v. Wade. He can't forcibly close abortion clinics. Remember the ONE issue he used a veto on -- his commitment on this issue can only be doubted by someone determined to be unfair and ignorant of reality.
Religious Values -- He is the President, not Billy Graham. It was not necessary to thump a Bible during SOTU to prove his convictions on this subject either. After six years we all know this.
Lowering Taxes - Fair point. He should at least have talked about extending the tax cuts past 2010 -- although in fairness if the last Congress wouldn't do this the current one certainly won't.
In sum, while the President is far from perfect I support him more than I do the jackasses in Congress (including many Republicans) and overall he's done well these past six years. IMHO you are unfairly blaming him for the sins of lesser politicians in Congress.
I disagree with the characterization of even tax treatment as "income redistribution". Why shouldn't every citizen who pays taxes get the same deduction, and what is "redistributing" about saying that a tax deduction will only be available for the first X-thousand dollars you spend on your health care insurance?
Most everything I buy for myself, I buy with post-tax dollars. When the government gives tax breaks, sure I'll use them, but they smack of social engineering, trying to bribe me into doing what THEY want.
For example, you can get a tax deduction for buying a hybrid care, but not for the full price, only for part of the cost of the car. And only the first 80,000 sold by each manufacturer, so they aren't encouraging people to OWN the cars so much as paying off each manufacturer when they get around to MAKING the cars, by making it easier for people to buy them.
But it's hardly income redistribution because the guy who buys a lexus hybrid gets a $3000 deduction on a $40,000 car, and the guy who buys a civic hybrid gets the same $3000 deduction on a $20,000 car.
So why is it "redistribution" if one person gets a $10,000 deduction for the $10,000 they pay for a bare-bones health insurance policy, and another person spends $20,000 of their money for a top-notch health insurance and gets to deduct $15,000 of that cost?
Let me illustrate another way. Suppose I pay $15,000 for insurance that includes dental, but doesn't cover braces. So I pay $6000 in after-tax dollars for the braces, which means I had to earn $9000 to pay or it after giving government their 33%.
Another person buys a $21,000 policy that fully covers braces. They only had to earn $6000 to pay for the braces, because their 6000 from an employer-sponsored health care benefit was pre-tax dollars.
Under the president's plan, both people will now get the SAME TAX BREAK. That's not "income redistribution", that's actually TAX FAIRNESS.
And I say this as someone who is quite likely to be paying taxes on my health care benefits.