The SOTU

[Brassmask]

If he says anything that I agree with, you all will be the first I tell after anyone I'm watching it with.

But in six years, I can't remember one thing I've agreed with him on.  Anyone want to remind me of any?

Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills.
-President Bush SOTU 2007

Well?

How does that provide health care to people who have no jobs or have no income or have income so low they pay NO taxes already?

[Amianthus]

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Overall Bush speech received favorably
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Overall, President Bush's State of the Union was received favorably by a sample of speech watchers interviewed by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation immediately after his 50-minute address to a joint session of Congress.

But the poll showed that Bush registered his lowest "very positive" post-State of the Union reaction of his presidency. Bush reached a high water mark of a 60% "very positive" response immediately following his 2005 speech. In 2006, 48% of speech watchers described his address as "very positive."

As for Tuesday night's speech, only 20% of those polled had a "negative" reaction to Bush's speech, while 41% walked away with a "very positive" feeling about the speech and 37% had a "somewhat positive" reaction.

A bare majority of Americans who watched the speech said they were confident that the U.S. would achieve its goals in Iraq; 46% were not confident. Compare that to the 2004 State of the Union, less than a year after the start of the Iraq war, when 71% of people who watched that speech expressed confidence about Iraq.

On the issue of bipartisanship, 53% of speech watchers said Bush's remarks were more likely to lead to cooperation between Democrats and the White House, while 43% did not think the address would help bridge the political differences.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll interviewed 370 adult Americans -- 32% Republican, 31% Democrat and 36% Independent -- who watched Bush's speech.

Full poll results: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/01/23/top3.pdf

-- CNN Polling Director Keating Holland and CNN Political Editor Mark Preston
Article

[_JS]

this great American orator

LOL

Honestly, I'm still grinning about this comment. I cannot tell if it speaks to the author's horrible judgement of oratory skill or the sad fact that this country has had so few masterful speakers.

This war is more than a clash of arms — it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance.

No, it isn't. It is neither a decisive ideological struggle nor is the security of our nation in the balance. That isn't great oratory skill or speechwriting, it is an outright falsehood.

The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity.

Since when is that the great question of our day? And why is our invasion the solution? We could have started with the Palestinians and Israelis, for example. This is a ridiculous assertion which attempts to provide meaning for a war post fact.

And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America.

And we can thank you for it. Thank you George W.

And at that moment, no matter what they said about it later, Bush had them

If so, then PT Barnum was proven correct yet again!

We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms.

No, they aren't. It is about time people realized what a usless cliche that is. It is used in every deployment, so that when a kid dies of heat stroke in Grenada because the military didn't prepare correctly for the Carribean climate they can say: "Jim died for your freedoms." It is a way for politicians and military brass to pass the buck.

[sirs]

This war is more than a clash of arms — it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance.

No, it isn't. It is neither a decisive ideological struggle nor is the security of our nation in the balance. That isn't great oratory skill or speechwriting, it is an outright falsehood.

The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity.

Since when is that the great question of our day? And why is our invasion the solution? We could have started with the Palestinians and Israelis, for example. This is a ridiculous assertion which attempts to provide meaning for a war post fact.

We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms.

No, they aren't. It is about time people realized what a usless cliche that is. It is used in every deployment, so that when a kid dies of heat stroke in Grenada because the military didn't prepare correctly for the Carribean climate they can say: "Jim died for your freedoms." It is a way for politicians and military brass to pass the buck.

Well, that's 1 way to look at it. 

The other way being of course the belief that the War taken on Terrorism, and in particular the intervention into Iraq was based on a sincere belief of the threat posed, based on the intel known at the time, and the events of 911.  That indeed it is a literal battle of ideologies, that of Freedom/Democracy vs Militant Islam/Islamofascism.  That we had an aboslute moral obligation to repair Iraq, when we took out it's dictator and oppressive regime.  That it IS a just war, and that EVERY death was not in vain, but in the effort of both bringing democracy to Iraq & enhanced security to America.  That would be another way of looking at it

[Xavier_Onassis]

...this great American orator.

Juniorbush sounds like Rich Little's impression of Ronald Reagan trying to do an impersonation of Bullwinkle the Moose. You know, Rocky the Flying Squirrel's chum.

The Last Great American orator was Everett Dirkson.

Sam, Ervin was a close second.

Reagan had a good delivery, but his speeches were not his own, and he could never wing it without getting his foot in his mouth.

[Plane]

If he says anything that I agree with, you all will be the first I tell after anyone I'm watching it with.

But in six years, I can't remember one thing I've agreed with him on.  Anyone want to remind me of any?

Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills.
-President Bush SOTU 2007

Well?

How does that provide health care to people who have no jobs or have no income or have income so low they pay NO taxes already?

It wouldn't  , but you are talkng about a minority part of the problem.
Reduceing the size of th problem by 75% is worth doing , and haveing done this , the 25% remaining will become a problem more easily solved by other means.

Do you hate haf a loaf so badly that you would rather the unfortunate had none?