I felt we should probably kick of a discussion of the state of the union address delivered last night. If you didn't get to see it, you can read it here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070123-2.html Some of the major points i liked in the address: - He has a plan to balance the budget in the next 5 years - reform medicare and medicade, and make health insurance affordable for everyone - improve border security and reduce illegal immigration - reduce oil consumption and increase the use of alternative fuels (it's a good thought, not much word to implementation, though) Some things i didn't like: - his war talk... it really just sounds like more of the same, with no clear exit strategy - much of the things i did like, oddly enough Let me explain... He'll be in office for another two years, and the main reason we don't have a balanced budget already is the war in Iraq - a war he started. this balanced budget he's proposing puts much of the execution on the shoulders of whoever comes after him - he'll only be there for another two years. Ending the war would do much more, much quicker, to balance the budget than his plan. The medicare and madicade reforms seemed pretty good to me - especially the part about a tax cut for those with private health insurance. I wish i had thought of something like that... it seems to fix a lot of the problems associated with the uninsured without relying heavily on the government for health care - of course, the execution of it may differ. Border security and immigration sound pretty good... increasing the number of border agents is a good thing, as is the temporary worker program he mentioned. What actually will happen after endless debate may differ though... we'll see if we're lucky. I liked that he was setting goals and numbers for reducing oil consumption and increasing alternative fuels. However, i would have liked to see a little harder numbers - like increased requirements for the FE of new vehicles placed in service. He also talked about stepping up domestic oil production in "environmentally friendly ways"... that sounds a lot like saying "we can put this oil well in Alaska and it won't harm the environment, i swear!". But we'll see what happens. His words towards the war sound like a lot more of the same... i also got the distinct impression from reading the speech that he was specifically naming other countries that we may be getting involved in, which i definitely didn't like... but it may have come off different on TV (i wasn't able to be at a TV during the speech). Anyways, i was just wondering what other people thought of the speech.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 24 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]380205[/snapback]</div> We agree on everything except the war - BTW I love his health care propsals - brilliant. The cost of another terror attack on this country will stagggarrrring - how much did the 9/11 attacks cost us? I think the point is we are in this war for whatever reason - lets try to win it - give our side some more time - our current losses while precious in terms of human life are miniscule when compared to other conflicts - and if we lose this war the potential loss of life here will be measured in the tens of thousands if not more.
It's not what they say, it's what they do that matters. Another thread on the SOTU here: http://priuschat.com/State-Of-Denial-Address-t28770.html
thanks for the link to the other thread... my intention here was to focus on the other portions of his speech, and leave the oil aspect mostly to those in the non-political portion of the site
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 24 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]380213[/snapback]</div> Huh? As I understand it, this plan offers tax *refunds* to people with lower incomes...who don't pay much in taxes to begin with? Shouldn't this be a tax CREDIT??? Am I missing something?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 24 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]380245[/snapback]</div> I'm not seeing the brilliance there either. Sounds like another gift to the insurance companies to go with that prescription drug plan they got a few years ago. Not to worry, though, everything I've read today says it has a snowball-in-hades chance of ever getting passed.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 24 2007, 02:38 PM) [snapback]380245[/snapback]</div> hmmm... i'll have to go reread that portion of the speech. The way i had understood it, it applied pretty much to anyone - medicare and medicade (with vague reforms mentioned) cover the poor, young, and elderly, while everyone else was previously left to fend for themselves... This new proposal basically says that if you have health insurance, you don't pay taxes on a part of your income. To me, that will encourage anyone making over that minimum (which should be everyone not already being cared for as being poor) to get insurance, if only minimal. a tax free 15,000 for your family means you're saving probably 5k or more in taxes... thats a lot of money that can really make a difference for health insurance. I see it less as a refund and more as an incentive. I would bet that with this reform they would also introduce something to the system where you can let your employer know your insurance information and they could then withhold less for your taxes. Just a guess, though. It doesn't sound to me like this is a deduction per say, and shouldn't be effected by AMT, or so i hope.
Call me a pessimist! I don't see what he can accomplish with an opposition party in majority in congress that he couldn't accomplish with his own party in the majority the past 6 years. I couldn't watch him lie to me one more time so I read instead. However, I sincerely hope he pulls something out of his hat which benefits our country.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 24 2007, 03:56 PM) [snapback]380255[/snapback]</div> The Dems want health care to be an issue in '08 and will not allow for such a brilliant plan to take effect prior to that. Sheer genius - too bad he did not come up with this two years ago.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan, 11:40 AM) [snapback]380205[/snapback]</div> This was a meaningless promise. Can't be done without either raising taxes or bringing other gov't services to their knees. How does he think he's going to do this? The back story on this is that the "20% reduction" is a reduction from projected oil use, not current use. Another meaningless pledge.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jan 24 2007, 04:13 PM) [snapback]380267[/snapback]</div> Look at my new topic post - CBO just cut projection of fed budget deficit AGAIN for next year - significantly. Odds are, given no new shocks to our economy like a successful terror attack on our home soil, the budget will be balanced way before 2012. EARMARKS are a key - and the democrats just refused to pass a "daylight bill" for earmarks. New taxes are not necessary and would be damaging. What is needed is ridding ourselves of the AMT and a total redo of our tax system towards a flat tax. We will not tax ourselves into anything but recession.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 24 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]380271[/snapback]</div> Unfortunately, according to the CBO website you're rather off... the numbers you posted represent the estimates for this year and the difference that is from last years actual spending. And the estimates don't include potential tax changes or war time spending. so the actual at the end of this year will be very different from the projected. war time spending alone is expected to increase the deficit by 25 billion or more.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 24 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]380271[/snapback]</div> Come on. You know that was not the case. The bill originally failed when the Republicans insisted on inserting a line item veto provision into it (somehow that was not a priority when the Republicans controlled congress). A compromise bill passed the next day. Chicago Tribune - Senate passes ethics reform bill
These plans come from a man who previously used the state of the union address to lie to Congress about how Iraq was buying yellowcake uranium from Sudan. Im still waiting for the implementation of Bushes 2004 state of the union announcement , to send a manned space mission to Mars.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 24 2007, 01:02 PM) [snapback]380258[/snapback]</div> Hillary's plan was a brilliant beginning (not 100% spot on) and timed perfectly. junior's is more lies and deceit as evidenced by his past performance. I can't imagine anyone with in IQ over 1 digit falling for his uninformed, pandering crap YET AGAIN. Bin Laden has more credibility. IF BL told me San Francisco was 'next' I'd duck and cover. If junior told me the same I'd go for a picnic on the Golden Gate Bridge. If I'm wrong and his plan is as you put it 'sheer genius' why didn't he present it when he had a congress which rubber stamped everything he placed before it? He's pandering. I'm used to it, you should get used to it too. We need a single payer health plan which covers ALL Americans, not some 'gimme' to the insurance companies which may cover some of the tax-paying semi-poor sometime in the distant future. (The afore mentioned sentence is plagiarized from my physician friend who I had lunch with today). Sheesh, take your blinders off, dude!
I think my friend Wendy summed up the State of the Union best: "(translation): Quack. Quack [hobble hobble limp] quack."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 24 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]380213[/snapback]</div> dbermanmd - 1. What does this current war have to do with 9/11 again? 2. How will we know when we've "won" the war. Didn't we already see the "mission accomplished" banner several years ago. Haven't we won yet? Which mission did we accomplish, and which missions must we still accomplish before we've won? 3. How do we know if we lose this war? What indications would we look for? I know I sound like a jerk. But really, that isn't my main point. I'd REALLY like to know what winning and losing this thing will look like. I, and most of the country, has NO idea. Do you? Does winning mean making the whole country a USA of the East? How will that be determined, and by whom?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 24 2007, 07:28 PM) [snapback]380371[/snapback]</div> I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree! Has anyone stopped to consider why the U.S. is the ONLY indrustrialized nation that doesn't have a single payer health care system? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the powerful lobby of the insurance companies is preventing true health care reforms. Without their obscene profits, and the accompanying bureaucracy we would have more than enough money to cover cradle to grave health care for all Americans. B)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmccord @ Jan 25 2007, 12:06 AM) [snapback]380474[/snapback]</div> It's because the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that considers health care a for profit business.
