 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - State of the Union Address. |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon                    Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6315 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| The transcript is here.
This thread is to basically debate some of the points made, or just to analyze the speech. I found a couple of things VERY interesting about this speech. Particularly.. "This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year -- and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009." Now if you just heard that once.. you'd be like "great the deficit won't be so large.. hooray for lower taxes". Nope. 140 programs were cut. What programs from where? And more importantly WHO weren't they working for? I'm pretty sure the student loans programs he's cutting would have worked just fine for people like me. He can't just come out and say we're cutting funding for education, healthcare and other social services for Americans because that would sound bad. Secondly, How can you cut taxes and expect to have these programs running effectively? The cuts are being made in social services, because I think he's made it stunningly clear that these cuts will not be made in military spending. So the quality and availability of health care, student loans, social security will be going down the tubes if spending is cut in these areas and taxes continue to be cut. Another thing I found interesting.. "The retirement of the baby-boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices -- staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending." This is a real problem. There needs to be a rational solution to this as well. However, you can't keep spending over 60% of our budget on the military if you're going to be able to deal with the problem of social security. You can't keep cutting taxes and expect to be able to pay for all the governments spending without runnin huge deficits. Which is why I guess privatizing social security does make some sense... however, it would prove to be more beneficial to rich people rather than poor people.. which is where I see a problem. "Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." Yes, from the middle east. And only 20% of our total oil consumption comes from the middle east. So that means we'd only be importing 5% of our oil from the middle east, which is a positive thing. But it isn't the milestone that he presented it to be, 75%. "Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it." "Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom's cause." This would make LOADS more sense if a clear link was established between dictatorships and a threat to our security. Yeah, now Iraq is a shelter for terrorists because there's no clear government there now. And I actually agreed with the war on terror when it was in Afghanistan because we were actually fighting terrorism, not tyranny. It startles me when America is acting as the polic of the world. How are we going to establish democracies in other countries? Are we taking on too large of a task, all alone? How many people have to die along the way? People are not going to stop dying if we're constantly involved in a war.. people are going to stop dying when we put an end to the war. If we retreat it means peace. Obviously now we have to make sure Iraq can stand on it's feet, I think we all agree there.. but it needs to be clear that we shouldn't have the authority to go into another country and say "I think your dictatorship is a threat to freedom and America", and start a war. That's terribly wrong, and I don't feel it's our place. By far the scariest points of the speech were in the beginning. It's kind of just a foreshadowing of wars to come. So dissect away. I'm interested to see what you thought of the President's speech. |
|||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
| The man is a horrible orator. That's not opinion, it's fact. The speech was hardly different from any other speech he's made in the last 5 years. Plus, he was all over the place. | |||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.   Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I stopped when I realized he was cutting student loans. I hate the idea of tax cuts. What he is doing is short-sighted and stupid. His "long term goals" are bullshit and impossible.
I don't care much for Bush, Al Gore won that election.  |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
|
|||
|
||bass Administrator  Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| I'm 100% for the tax cuts. People need to learn to earn their keep. It's not the government's job to pamper you through life.
Life doesn't have to be fair, go cry a big liberal river over it. The government shouldnt punish successful people because others can't carry their own weight. |
|||
|
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6315 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| Ouch. No sympathy for people dying of cancer in hospitals that can't afford healthcare? No sympathy for the homeless, who are more often than not mentally unstable? No sympathy for students like me trying to get a decent education, but need student loans to get through college? No sympathy for people who need social security benefits like medicare and medicaid to pay for ridiculously overpriced medicines so they don't die? What about rebuilding New Orleans? That's going to take some serious tax dollars. Funding the war, no matter what your opinion on it may be, takes serious tax dollars.
There's alot of reasons why we need taxes. I'm not saying they should be ridiculously high.. but you can't expect to have effective and available social services if you continue to cut taxes like this President has done. |
|||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
| Y'know, if we cut Military funding we could really have some nice services. Also, there needs to be graduated taxes, so rich people carry their weight. | |||
Tommathy Since: 11-17-05 From: Cloud Nine, Turn Left and I'm There~ Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| Miami Herald article, c/o Fark.com
Bush vows to cut Middle East oil imports by 75 percent in his SOTU address. His energy secretary says he "didn't meant it literally" and it "was purely an example" |
|||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Tommathy You can't think Bush was serious about that oil crap. He was a freaking high-up in an oil company. |
|||
neotransotaku Sledge Brother Liberated from school...until MLK day  Since: 11-17-05 From: In Hearst Field Annex... Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Wurlbut rich would decry discrimination and we end up back where we started... as for his state of the union address, I don't have much of an opinion on it. I did feel he had to say what he needed to say but I know his words don't mean much of anything. I found the democratic responses to his state of the union interesting--they all criticized out of obligation and had no relevant content. |
|||
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite! Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6324 days Last view: 6302 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass This is a very immature and shortsited mindset. |
|||
Gavin Cheep-cheep Vandalism is not tolerated Since: 11-17-05 From: IL, USA Last post: 6371 days Last view: 6314 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass LoLZ! You're very funny. Originally posted by Dracoon I don't hate the idea of tax cuts, but jesus chrit, we're in a war?! This is fucked up Reaganomics at it's best, where we all just pull money out of our ass, or rather the asses of the chumps younger than us who will have to pay this shit off. Which is something that reminds me of the argument for Bush's Social Security fund. His argument was along the lines of, "Because it is amoral to push the burdens of today off on tommorow's youth," and beacuse, "the system is broken and we have to have enough resolve to fix it." Well where is that resolve now? Tax cuts in war time? GTFO Bah, Bush has fucking butchered education -- one of the single most important investments our country can make. And fuck, if he had actually vetoed a single bill, maybe we wouldn't be in such a cash crunch. Maybe if the proposed 2007 Defense budget wasn't almost 1/2 trillion dollars (and he says we're going to cut the deficit in half by 2009??). I think it's disgusting that the only bills he has even talked about vetoing are in some way related to some bullshit dead argument about Roe and abortion. And really, it shows as a great example of exactly what American did in the '04 election: trade in their wallets, pensions, and children's education because they find the idea of two guys kissing repulsive and apparently the spread of civil, non-secular marriage is something they should squash. That said, the general themes about removing ourselves from foreign oil dependancies is something to like. But shit, who is going to not like being told, "In 20 years this will all be a funny memory while we drive our eletric/hydrogen cars for $1 a tank". I don't have firsthand personal perspective on the longevity of programs initiated during speeches like this, but I can say that, for many of the proposals, I would be very happy and nicely suprised to find them working as the president exp |
|||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
Originally posted by George W. Bush lolrz. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerNo. You know what is immature and short-sighted? Punishing people for being successful with graduated taxes. The radical leftism present in Affairs/Debate is sickening. People need to grow up and learn things like personal responsibility and stop relying on handouts from beaurocratic government programs.Originally posted by ||bass |
|||
Imajin Bot Local Moderator Currently affected by 'No syndrome' ---!!!  Since: 12-05-05 From: Camineet, Palm Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Well, why don't we just abolish government then?
The government should exist for the benefit of all it's citizens, not just the upper class that can afford to pay for everything. If someone dying of cancer is poor, should we toss them onto the street when they can't pay the bill? If a poor family wants to have their son go to college and move up in life, should we deny them a student loan in the name of "Trimming the government"? |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ImajinThe government should exist for the sole purpose of defending the nation and maintaining order. Anything else should be the responsibility of society at large, not the government. Social welfare should be provided by private, voluntary, charity, not punative taxes. |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6309 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| but ||bass.... socialism is the only way.... can't you see that?
[sigh] I think ||bass is the only sane person in this thread right now.... I do think that the wealthy have a responsibility to use their wealth to help others.... but I don't see why corrupt governments deserve to take more money from them which in turn gets wasted on programs that don't always help people |
|||
|
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite! Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6324 days Last view: 6302 days |
| ||
Ahem. It's evident that this is your idea of a circle.
Anyways, I hate to say it, but the only thing that anyone on the uncaring right has said correctly in this thread was by geeogree. Yes, some of these programs DO NOT HELP THE POOR. That is a problem. But that's only because they're such a beauracracy. Regardless, ||bass, you're a greedy db who one day hopes he will be rich and not pay many taxes. You're getting rich because of the country you live in, and the laws which make the country what it is. Don't flatter yourself; in an anarchist society (which it sounds like you're proposing), I can't see any company made by anyone here lasting a while. It's not the government's job to pamper you through life. Okay now I realize that you have no clue what the hell you're talking about. Do you know what welfare is? Do you realize how INCREDIBLY FUCKING HARD IT IS TO LIVE OFF OF IT, EVEN WITH A JOB? You, sir, are the lazy one who doesn't want to pay for the people that build your cars, clean your streets, build your bridges, and serve your meals. Nah, I'm joking. Had you there for a second, eh? Someday I too hope to build a company, or even an EMPIRE, run by the poor. Living wages won't even be in my vocabulary, and because the government stopped helping the poor, they'll all die off soon without having chance to create a union! Hail satan! (edited by windwaker on 02-04-06 03:22 PM) (edited by windwaker on 02-04-06 03:29 PM) (edited by windwaker on 02-04-06 03:32 PM) |
|||
Randy53215 Melon Bug Since: 11-17-05 From: Greenfield, Wisconsin (U.S.A) Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass Bass marry me! That was well said by Bass. This speech has to be one of thee best speeches I heard from Bush. My dad paid 20,000+ in taxes already. I shouldnt have to pay for your kid or whatever to go to college. That is why scholarships exit. I am for everything he said. Except about the whole "medicare" thing. I will never put a chip in my skin you can go fuck yourself. I am with Bass on this one. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| Private charities such as the Red Cross as well as church organizations are for more effective at getting help to the people who need it then government programs. It's a fact of life.
The bottom line is that a large percent of government aid goes to people who are perfectly capible of earning their own living. Many of the people who genuinely need aid do not recive any because they "don't qualify" under corrupt beaurocratic standards. Private charities, on the other hand, have a much more free hand in who gets aid. Ask yourself who you think provided more help in the hurricane Katrina crisis, FEMA or the Red Cross? I rest my case. It shouldn't be the job of the government to do these things. All beaurocratic organizations will tend to be far less efficient and more wasteful then a privately run organization. If taxes for welfare programs were cut and people donated more to charity instead. You would see a much more effective use of the money, and you would see it going to the genuinely deserving, and not people who just figured out how to manipulate the welfare system. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - State of the Union Address. |
| |
