State of the Union Address 2004

[brownjenkins]

let's see...

free elections ~ he fought against a recount in his own election

free speech ~ he pushed through the patriot act which restricts freedom of speech in more ways than i feel like listing at the moment

free trade ~ he raised steel tariffs, extended copyright laws, and forced the us taxpayer to accept excessive no-bid contract terms in the name of national security

i am not a "democrat" btw (yes, they buy votes too), i just see them as the lesser of two evils when compared to gwb... and unfortunately, the only "electable" opposition

if the choice is between tax and spend or don't tax and spend, i will grudgingly except the former...

the government plays much less of a role in the us economy than most non-economists think, the economy will come back with or without political incentives... i am more concerned with how well the politicians keep their own house in order

[HOBBIT]

I watched most of it. Bush is pretty boring.

That clapping every 1-2 mintues is REALLY ANNOYING and NOT needed. They could at least save their standing and clapping for really good things he says - not just every time he pauses! A few times they clapped just when he paused and when they weren't supposed to.

And the democrats applauded at "the patriot act expires next year-" haha, bush made a face at that.

and whats with announcing the president like it was at wrestling match?

Kennedy was amusing (close-ups of him)

otherwise, it was pretty dull and annoying and I turned it off after about 30 minutes of it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
let's see...

free elections ~ he fought against a recount in his own election

He didn't fight against a recount - he fought more against the limited recount that Gore wanted to do. Gore only wanted to recount democractic dsitricts. Gore also didn't want to include a lot of the servicemen's absentie ballots

free speech ~ he pushed through the patriot act which restricts freedom of speech in more ways than i feel like listing at the moment

It doesn't restrict free speech and he didn't push it through - it was agreed upon by democracts.

free trade ~ he raised steel tariffs, extended copyright laws, and forced the us taxpayer to accept excessive no-bid contract terms in the name of national security

Steel tariffs - Japan was DUMPING steel. Extended copyrights - he didn't extend copyrights - he doesn't have that power. The only copyright I know of that was extended was Mickey Mouse - and I agree with it.

As for contrat terms - The only real complaint there is Halliburton. And that's more partisan than anything. Clinton gave plenty of jobs to his cronies and the democrats stayed silent.

i am not a "democrat" btw (yes, they buy votes too), i just see them as the lesser of two evils when compared to gwb... and unfortunately, the only "electable" opposition

That's good. But Bush has been far better for this country then gore or clinton. We would have been back to do nothings with either of those were presidents. After a year or two - we would have just gone back to doing nothing to secure this country and taking a hard line in the Middle East.

if the choice is between tax and spend or don't tax and spend, i will grudgingly except the former...
]

Why? Why should the government just take my money all the time? Part of the reason for the deficit has been the economy. As the economy improves - the debt will reduce too. Congress should cut their pork barrel projects, like bridges that go no where.

the government plays much less of a role in the us economy than most non-economists think, the economy will come back with or without political incentives... i am more concerned with how well the politicians keep their own house in order

That is very true and a point hat I have argued many times. But the tax cut does give back people their own money. The congress has to cut stupid programs and stop spending it on pork barrel crap. The President also has VERY LITTLE to do with spending - it congress that holds the purse strings. For all during the democratic reign we had deficits, and we also encountered severe stagflation. if it wasn't for 9/11 and the corporate scandals - neither of which were bush's fault - the economy would be in much better shape, we would not have the deficit we have.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I watched most of it. Bush is pretty boring.

I just don't like his winking.

That clapping every 1-2 mintues is REALLY ANNOYING and NOT needed. They could at least save their standing and clapping for really good things he says - not just every time he pauses! A few times they clapped just when he paused and when they weren't supposed to.

There is no marks for when they are supposed to clap. They just clap when they feel like it. It's to show their support or displeasure for things. At least it's not like parliament where they shout down the PM.

And the democrats applauded at "the patriot act expires next year-" haha, bush made a face at that.

it was just scattered applauding and it seemed to be figured that some would clap there because his next phrase counteracted their applause on purpose.

and whats with announcing the president like it was at wrestling match?

Was this your FIRST time watching the State of the Union Address?

Kennedy was amusing (close-ups of him)

He was rather funny - the old bastard.

otherwise, it was pretty dull and annoying and I turned it off after about 30 minutes of it.

Good to know that you can still think you are intelligently informed. Sorry - but not everything that is important is exciting. What speech is exciting anyway? Oh yeah - Howard Deans after the Iowa Caucus.

[edit] Hope you never want to be a politician - because most of it is boring meetings and speeches. You might want to watch CSPAN sometime.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I didn't say it was - but when it is filtered in a particular way - it is. I found this to be definelty the case when it comes to the French news. I don't know what the rest of Europe is like right now - but I have seen similar tactics done on the BBC also.

So it isn't, but it is?

I won't defend the BBC. However, all news programmes have some kind of bias - and the information on which you base your opinions about Europe must come, at least partly, from the American media (though I know you also watch French news). Are all American news programmes fair and impartial?

That's my last comment on the subject, anyway.

yes - we do sometimes. We were outraged and very nervous when Le Pen was "nearly" voted in. We don't criticize your internal affairs as much - although I have started to now - because I have seen how much the outside world likes to criticize us.

...

it seems very few Europeans understand us or our government. And contrary to popular opinion - Europeans seem just as disinterested in learning about us as they think we are disinteresed in learning about them. I'm not saying all Europeans are like this of course - just like not all Americans are. But I don't see much of a difference in the ignorance between Europeans and Americans.

You often say this, and I agree with you, but I wish someone would prove it somehow - based on more than Entmoot, which I think we can agree is a rather small sample . Personally, I don't see much of a difference in the readiness of Europeans and Americans to answer any point with instant criticism, or to respond to those the other side of the Atlantic with arrogance and disdain as soon as they see where they're from. It's time-wasting and stupid and we're all guilty of it.

I just wanted to say all that - ignore it if you like. I'm not going to have this discussion with you again though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by sun-star
So it isn't, but it is?

It depends how it is edited and if they add their own commentary to it. I see this all the time on french news when they report on something in the US. The California Debates is a perfect example which I have brought up several times. They wanted to make Scwarzennegger look like a loud mouth buffoon - when they edited the debates - they definitely made him look like that. if I didn't see the debates myself live and uncut - I would have beleived he was shouting everyone down. They announced over there that he lost the debates and over here- - they were announcing he won the debates. Anyway - we all know who won the governors recall election.

I won't defend the BBC. However, all news programmes have some kind of bias - and the information on which you base your opinions about Europe must come, at least partly, from the American media (though I know you also watch French news). Are all American news programmes fair and impartial?

No they're not - that's why I watch about 5 or more different news programs - not to mention the French news you mentioned.

You often say this, and I agree with you, but I wish someone would prove it somehow - based on more than Entmoot, which I think we can agree is a rather small sample . Personally, I don't see much of a difference in the readiness of Europeans and Americans to answer any point with instant criticism, or to respond to those the other side of the Atlantic with arrogance and disdain as soon as they see where they're from. It's time-wasting and stupid and we're all guilty of it.

That can be true to a point - but it's not true with me at least. I don't care where a person comes from and I consider many people overseas to be my friend. Before I started talking to them - I had no idea what they're politics were - some of them I still do not know where they stand. Politics to me is not important to a friendship - it is only one aspect. As it happened - I just was interested in their countries and wanted to learn more about them. Some people on Entmoot - I just thought were really nice and seemed cool and I felt I wanted to know more about them - so I contacted them, or we just started to talk.

I just wanted to say all that - ignore it if you like. I'm not going to have this discussion with you again though.

I don't ignore anyone or anything. I just don't necessarily agree with everyone.

[brownjenkins]

The congress has to cut stupid programs and stop spending it on pork barrel crap. The President also has VERY LITTLE to do with spending - it congress that holds the purse strings. For all during the democratic reign we had deficits, and we also encountered severe stagflation. if it wasn't for 9/11 and the corporate scandals - neither of which were bush's fault - the economy would be in much better shape, we would not have the deficit we have.

last i looked republicans held both the congress and the presidency... they've had plenty of time to cut pork... and all the last few years have shown is that they do not intend to cut pork... instead they are spending on different things... spending much more than democrats ever did

the government can do little to help the economic situation... it can do a lot to hurt it however... clinton was good for the economy, because unlike bush or reagan, he did very little to change the economic status quo, either by raising or lowering taxes... drastic tax cuts however, whether justified or not, lead to instability... and massive deficits, which will catch up to us if the non-fiscally responsible republicans are allowed to continue to hold the white house (and there are some republicans that are responsible, but they're in the background these days)

i want fiscal responsibility first... if i can't get that i prefer someone who does little to nothing, than someone who spends like a kid in a candy store

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
last i looked republicans held both the congress and the presidency... they've had plenty of time to cut pork... and all the last few years have shown is that they do not intend to cut pork... instead they are spending on different things... spending much more than democrats ever did

The houses are pretty much split evenly - if you think anything can be done - then look at the fight that developed over last years budget. Just because the republicans have a majority right now - it is not a major majority like the democrats had had.

You can check out how members of congress vote on by going to Vote Smart

Or

Thomas: Legislative Information on the Internet

the government can do little to help the economic situation... it can do a lot to hurt it however... clinton was good for the economy, because unlike bush or reagan, he did very little to change the economic status quo, either by raising or lowering taxes... drastic tax cuts however, whether justified or not, lead to instability... and massive deficits, which will catch up to us if the non-fiscally responsible republicans are allowed to continue to hold the white house (and there are some republicans that are responsible, but they're in the background these days)

Tax cuts are not what caused the deficits. 9/11, the economic downturn and people out of work is what caused the deficits. The ammount of money that was in the tax cuts would be a drop in the bucket if the economy picked up and the tech sector people who made big bucks and contributed a lot to the tax base could get jobs.

For your information - Bush did NOTHING to contribute to the economic downturn. The economy started going south the last year of Clinton's presendency, the corporate scandals that also caused an economic problem for Bush was actually under Clinton. I'm not blaming Clinton for that, but I have seen democrats try to lay the blame on Bush for the corporate scandals.

i want fiscal responsibility first... if i can't get that i prefer someone who does little to nothing, than someone who spends like a kid in a candy store

name some of the things you are so against Congress spending on. As it stands - the president can't spend a dime without Congress and it takes more than the republicans to get anything through the House and Senate - even with their narrow majority.

Here is the break down of the House and Senate...

House of Represenatives
-------------------------------
228 Republicans
224 Democrats
1 Independent
2 Vacancies

Senate
-------------------------------
51 Republicans
48 Democrats
1 Independent

Congressional Profile

[Edit] This is the type of information you can get on Vote Smart...

Forest Thinning – Passage


Bill Number: HR 1904
Issue: Environmental Issues
Date: 10/30/2003
Sponsor: Bill sponsored by Scott, R-CO


Roll Call Number: 0428
Bill Passed
Full Member List

Senator Jon Stevens Corzine voted YES.

Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $760 million for thinning dense forests.

HR 1904 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003

Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $760 million for thinning dense forests. The bill would allow up to 20 million acres of federal land, which is at high risk of catastrophic wildfire, to have treatment. Preliminary court injunctions against logging projects would be limited to 60 days. Which are then subject to renewal once the court has reviewed them. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land management are required to completely maintain the restoration of old-growth trees and maximize the preservation of large trees. It also would decrease the number of reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act

(Bill sponsored by Scott, R-CO)
House Passage Vote: 5/20/03-Outcome: Passed
Senate Passage Vote: 11/06/03- Outcome: Passed
House Conference Report Vote: 11/21/03- Outcome: Passed
Senate Conference Report Vote: 11/21/03- Outcome: Passed
Presidential Action: Signed on 12/02/03

I had looked up how my Senator voted.

[Insidious Rex]

As it stands - the president can't spend a dime without Congress and it takes more than the republicans to get anything through the House and Senate - even with their narrow majority.

Senate Passes Federal Spending Bill
The U.S. Senate, acting swiftly after overcoming Democratic delaying tactics, today passed a massive, overdue spending bill that funds much of the federal government this fiscal year but is heavily laden with pork-barrel projects.

By a vote of 65 to 28, the Senate sent the $328 billion "omnibus" spending bill to President Bush for signature a month after the House of Representatives had passed it. Senate Democrats, angered by some of the bill's provisions, had prevented a floor vote on it, foiling a cloture motion as recently as Tuesday that would have ended debate on the package.

But faced with Republican threats to replace the omnibus bill with a measure that would have held most government funding to last year's levels -- about $6 billion less than the package under consideration -- a number of Democrats sided with Republicans in a 61-32 roll call vote that allowed the spending bill to proceed. That vote total was one more than needed to end the delaying tactics.

"Nobody here wants to be accused of shutting the government down," Senate Democratic leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) told reporters. "But it is with great concern and chagrin that we find ourselves in this position today."

Passage of the bill, more than three months after the start of the 2004 fiscal year on Oct. 1, came as a victory for President Bush, since the package implements controversial White House-backed positions on overtime pay, country-of-origin food labeling and media ownership.

The $328 billion that the bill provides is in discretionary spending that Congress approves annually. When $45 million for highway and mass transit funding is added -- money that comes from gasoline and other transportation taxes -- the bill's total rises to about $373 billion.

The bill provides $14 million for school vouchers for low-income students in the District, the nation's first such federally financed program. Total funding for the District comes to $540 million.
It also gives members of Congress a 2.2 percent salary increase, to $158,000 a year.

The FBI's funding goes up 9 percent, to $4.6 billion. The Education Department gets $56 billion, 5 percent more than last year. Also in the package is $17 billion for foreign aid, including $2.4 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. Funding for NASA rises by half a percent, to $15.5 billion.

Among the most controversial provisions, as a whole, are nearly 8,000 "earmarks," or special funding measures, for projects in the home states of representatives and senators. These come to $10.7 billion, according to the watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, which advocates reduced government spending.

Among the triumphs for the GOP is a provision that reduces from 90 days to one day the amount of time that the FBI must keep records of gun purchase applicants.

The bill also allows companies to pay overtime to fewer white-collar workers, permits media conglomerates to own more television stations and postpones for two years a requirement to put country-of-origin labels on beef and many other foods sold at stores.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said the nation was demanding that Congress complete action on the spending bill. "It is time to move on," he said.

A leading opponent of the bill, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Republicans had adopted a "take it or leave it" attitude on the package. "This is one senator who's going to leave it because of what it will do to working families and women and veterans of this country," he said, according to the Associated Press.

Hmmm… cant get anything through the house or congress? I think that’s what you call forcing the weaker party to do what you want without even a hint of compromise. So much for that argument. Bring on the senseless pork when the deficit is ballooning! Bring on the corporate and fat cat welfare at the expense of the common citizen! Isnt it nice to have your cake and eat it too?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Hmmm… cant get anything through the house or congress? I think that’s what you call forcing the weaker party to do what you want without even a hint of compromise. So much for that argument. Bring on the senseless pork when the deficit is ballooning! Bring on the corporate and fat cat welfare at the expense of the common citizen! Isnt it nice to have your cake and eat it too?

Hmmm - it was approved by 65 - 28,. Interesting. There are only 51 Republican senators. That means that if EVERY Republican agreed with it - which is unlikely - that there were an additional 14 democrats. They could have stayed their ground. The Republicans under Gingrich shut down the government in order to reduce spending - they completely refused to accept Clinton's budget.

By the way - i would really like you source on this article.

Among the most controversial provisions, as a whole, are nearly 8,000 "earmarks," or special funding measures, for projects in the home states of representatives and senators. These come to $10.7 billion, according to the watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, which advocates reduced government spending.

This statement is really laughable. You know who has provided their state with the most pork barrel projects? Democrat Byrd of West Virginia.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Hmmm - it was approved by 65 - 28,. Interesting. There are only 51 Republican senators. That means that if EVERY Republican agreed with it - which is unlikely - that there were an additional 14 democrats. They could have stayed their ground.

well allow me to repeat then:

But faced with Republican threats to replace the omnibus bill with a measure that would have held most government funding to last year's levels -- about $6 billion less than the package under consideration -- a number of Democrats sided with Republicans in a 61-32 roll call vote that allowed the spending bill to proceed. That vote total was one more than needed to end the delaying tactics.

"Nobody here wants to be accused of shutting the government down," Senate Democratic leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) told reporters. "But it is with great concern and chagrin that we find ourselves in this position today."

Thus the democrats saw they had no good choice in this and were forced to swallow this bitter unfair pill rather then shut down the government like the republicans had no problem doing. Wasnt someone just arguing about those damn democrats not bowing down and accepting their fate in Texas rather then delaying things by running away and putting off the redistricting vote? Isnt that the exact opposite argument that you are making here?

By the way - i would really like you source on this article.

just some small time paper called The Washington Post

The most pitiful thing about the bill is probably the provision that reduces from 90 days to one day the amount of time that the FBI must keep records of gun purchase applicants that was snuck in as a rider by some representative very much in the pocket of the NRA. What is the point of this!! Keeping those records for 90 days has stopped hundreds of criminals from being able to purchase weapons. In this day in age when the administration loves to crow about how we need to be much more vigilant about terrorists and spend billions on things that allow the government to moniter every thing we do can they really have the unmitigated gaul to scrap something so useful to law enforcement?? what freaking hypocrites. Police forces and the ATF have castigated this move.

[The Gaffer]

What is a "pork barrel project"?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
What is a "pork barrel project"?

its basically something that a politician sticks into a bigger bill that benefits just a small segment of his constituancy or is pay back to a business or some such and generally has nothing to do with the bill. for example on an environmental bill they might try to slip in a $10 million rider for researching nose picking in Yodale, Mississippi or something. Or a damn that isnt needed anywhere simply because it would give some jobs to people who would then vote for that person. or because a construction mogul gave the senator a bunch of money when he was campaigning and now its pay back time. thats PORK. needless money spending filler. they put it in larger bills because they know it would most likely never pass on its own. This isnt to say that ALL pork is evil, some of it has its uses but generally its handled in a sneaky sleazy way.

[brownjenkins]

like i said it's the lesser of two evils in my view... the economy aside... lately both parties have been doing very little to reduce overall federal debt... and unlike the deficit, this will take more than just an economic recovery to reduce

that said, the democrats have at least been willing to try and cover what they spend... the president and most republicans just don't seem to care