State of the Union

[@DCGoldPants]

What did you guys think of the Speech?

What about the responses from both sides?

Think Powell has some juice evidence next week?

[Kilmer17]

I thought it was total crap until he started on Iraq.

Hydrogen car? Are you effin kidding me? We need to look for alternate energy sources, but the key should be Fuel Cell technology, not some sci-fi Marty McFly dream.

Aids in Africa? BFD. Lets cure disease HERE. How about 15 billion dollars to find a cure for cancer? Or juvenile diseases? Or Autism?

I did like his thoughts on kids with parents who are in prison, but what exactly did he propse to fix it? Mentors?

The only thing that made this speach palatable (other than his foreign policy) was comparing it to the laughable response from the Dems. What a joke that was.

[@DCGoldPants]

Holy crap...I agree with you!

Fuel Cells baby! That's why I bought up stock now.......cheapy cheapy and in 10 years hopefully I am sitting pretty.

Also, I agree with you about it being shady until the international stuff. I don't know if when peeps from his own party are questioning it.....how good it is.

Who is that Dem Governor from Washington? I wanted to trust him but you could tell he was just reading the script! He seemed like a nice guy though. Not Shady like the people running his party.

[Kilmer17]

He has a 30% approval rating in his own state. This was the best the Dems could do?

I want to see the big guns come out afterwards and give an actual response (Chris Dodd ie) not some canned speech.

[Art]

The speech was crafted in a very nice way. It showed the soft hand in the first half. It then showed the firm hand in the second. I am uncomfortable with President Bush saying we need spending discipline in Washington while then outlining programs that the Federal Government could and should do without.

Industry needs to come up with the technology of our future, not government. I do not want to spend a single DIME in Africa until our health problems are solved in this nation. I don't want to spend a dime on people with self-inflicted problems like using drugs. But, this is where I generally find myself in disagreement with the President.

I dont' know how much of that was real either. He comes off as a very sincere, believable, caring person in those speeches. But, some of those ideas are simply not conservative -- compassionate or not. The second half of the speech though showed the firm hand needed to deal with tyrants. He delivered a compelling speech on Iraq. You could feel the anger in his words and he owned that room. One thing that struck me was how many people afterward commented on the room and how completely engaged the people were when Bush started hammering home on Iraq.

In all, I don't think it was a great speech, but, I do think it was a speech that let you know what this President believes, whether you like it all or not and I certainly didn't like it all. This President doesn't lead by poll. He leads by conviction and a moral center. It's kind of refreshing. Though, I'd like to debate him on some of those ideas .

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

He has a 30% approval rating in his own state. This was the best the Dems could do?

I want to see the big guns come out afterwards and give an actual response (Chris Dodd ie) not some canned speech.

2 for 2 again. I agree.

I was thinking about the Smoking Gun stuff. I know that stuff is really really bad and I don't doubt that its there. But iaren't it there in other countries doing the same things also? Connections to Al-Queda, trying to build nasty weapons? If we went in a took out Saddam, who would replace him? I wanted to hear a plan on what happens after we step in. I don't want U.S. troops there for years and years.

Art, after reading your posts on politics, I think you'd crush him in a one on one debate.

[gbear]

Honestly , there were parts that I really liked, and of course parts that I really disliked.

What I loved in the speach was Bush talking about proposing 15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. It's about time we had a president who realised the threat inherent in an entire continents adult population being cut in half over a generation with no end in sight wihtout help. That type of stiuation is ripe for governmetn colapse and discord. Does anyone think that would have no impact here? Of course, that ignores the moral obligation I think we have to help where millions of people are dying and we can help. On this part, he gets high marks from me. I recognize that not even Clinton who deemed it a security issue tried to fund any resolution adequately. Clintons treatment of the AIDS issue here and abroad was my biggest problem with him. Clinton waited till he left the whitehouse to begin speaking about it, and to me that's not good enough. So in any event, Bush gets props on that front.

I'm still hesitant on faith based iniatives. I don't like the government funding churches, but I do believe the churches can do good things with the money. I just don't want to see churches make the leap of "Well, we were spending $20,000 this year on this charity. Now that we have government money, we can spend that 20,000 on a new building." That part I cringe at. I also cringe because I'm not sure many church based charities have the manpower to take on big charity projects. If a church has 15 volunteers working full time, they might need 40,000. Let's say the church can only fund 20,000. In that respect, they could use the government funds for the additional 20,000. However, if given 50,000, there's no guaruntee the money will be used effectively or as effectively becasue there may not be voluteers. Anyways, those are my two main concerns on that front.

As for the tax cut, I'm still against the dividend tax removal as a form of economic stimulus. Everything I've seen indicates that won't increase consumer spending at the same rate a general tax break will. I'd still rather see the whole tax cut spent on the government debt, but failing that I question the assertion that a dividend cut is the best way to spur the economy.

As for the war, we'll see what Powell has to say next week. I'm inclined to trust that we have more than we have shown. I'm not really questioning the justification for going to war. I'd just like to see more for our plans for the aftermath. To me, that still what's missing. Having a justification and an ability to hit someone isn't enough. You need to be able to answer the question of "what will this help?" I think that's true in personal and international relations.

[Henry]

Who is that Dem Governor from Washington? I wanted to trust him but you could tell he was just reading the script! He seemed like a nice guy though. Not Shady like the people running his party.

Actually compared to Pelosi and Kennedy I thought he did a great job.

I havve to agree with the rest of you about Bush's speech. Iraq is obviously his focus right now, and it showed last night. Once he started talking about Hussien he started kicking some serious tuchus.

[Kilmer17]

g, the epidemic in Africa is horrific. BUt dont you think we should focus on curing the diseases that hurt us here first?

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

g, the epidemic in Africa is horrific. BUt dont you think we should focus on curing the diseases that hurt us here first?

We do have AIDS in the U.S.. I'd like to see a idea that says we will treat every American with AIDS who wants help.

You think that if we don't make some serious leaps with the people here....that medication or treatments can't be sent over. Might as well start in your own backyard. Actually, I read that there are these women in Africa who sell themselves for money and while they have slept with dozens, maybe hundreds on men with AIDS, they are not contracting it. They were about to go through a series of tests. Now, I don't know what happened next but I am curious.

[Kilmer17]

Not to sound mean, but anyone who contracts AIDS in the US is an idiot.

I think we should continue funding to find a cure and vaccine for the disease, but that's completely different from offering 15 billion dollars to supply meds for people in Africa who already have it. I just think we need to put the sick in America in front of the sick in Africa.

[dchogs]

the moral obligation I think we have to help where millions of people are dying and we can help.

i completely disagree with this. completely. we have no business sustaining the population of an entire continent. africa needs to sustain its own population. we sent food, the population continued to grow and further exceed what could reasonably be "held" by africa. now we send medicine? and money? please. we could send in boatloads of cash and it isn't going to dent the problem. we need to focus on our own country and get it in order.

[gbear]

It hurts us here, no doubt. As I said, my problems with Clinton stemed from the fact that he did little HERE or ABROAD. From my perspective, atleast Bush is doing something about one of the two. I'll take it and work for the other.

Seriosuly, the things that can be done here easily I have little hope of ever seeing happen from a conservative Republican. For example, needle exhange programs have the ability to more than pay for htemselves without increasing drug usage. IN fact, a safer inviroment for the usage could be seen as humane. It's not going to happen from this administration.

Condom usage...please. This administration forced the health department to take condoms off of the list of things that can help prevent the spread of HIV. This administration wants to solely fund abstinance only plans. Nevermind that what seems to work is both free condoms/ teaching about their usage and encouraging abstinance.

Public healthcare infrastructure is in bad shape. Here in DC, we lost a public hospital recently. Many more are suffering economicly, and the states can't pay for them. Despite a platform of states rights and independance, I don't see much financial help coming from this administration. I hope I'm wrong on this. The good news on this front is the costs of HIV and AIDS drugs in coming down. That means there's hope that HIV and AIDS doesn't have to be a source fo economic bleeding for local healthcare forever (or atleast the bleeding is slowing).

Overseas, we're talking about governments colapsing. If you are ever going to fight terror, you have to reduce the numbers of places where terrorists will be accepted. If governments collapse, we're creating hiding places. Of course with general government and economic collapse, we're also throwing away huge potential markets. Much of the good we've done in trying to develop economic markets in Africa is in jeopardy.

Aside from the millions of dying people giving us a moral obligation to help, I think there are significant arguements to be made that it is in our best interest as well. It's not just charity. It's thinking more than a year in advance.

[Kilmer17]

I think it's about prioritizing. We should help Africa, after we have helped the sick in America first.

Hospitals are closing across the US. Doctors are quitting as well. The number one reason is the cost of malpractice insurance. The tort lawyers have forced that industry into raising the premiums to the point that doctors cant afford it. Thank you John Edwards.

[dchogs]

kilmer,

it's that and the lack of payments from hmo's/insurance companies. the hospital my father works at is constantly in the red. there are tons of operations that my dad performs that he loses money on. couple that with the rising malpractice costs (especially in pennsylvania), doc's are being forced to move away or quit entirely. my dad could make more money being a legal consultant for malpractice cases than he makes practicing medicine. the system is broken, plain and simple.

[gbear]

Kilmer, I had no problem with that part of hi SOTU address either when he mentioned tort reform for medical malpractice. It's definitely needed, and it's been a long time coming.

I'd also add a lessening of requirements for what insurance HAS to pay for. I don't mind paying more for better insurance, but there needs to be low cost/less coverage insurance. That's something that has been proposed, and I would have loved to hear him mention it but I guess a liberal dem can only hope for so much;)

[Kilmer17]

Actually, thats a fairly conservative point of view. I would love to see more choices like that. Unfortunately the SECOND those programs are introduced, their would be lawsuits and complaints that the poor and destitute dont have adequate coverage.

Similar to the complaints last year that poor people (for lack of a better word) were'nt getting a refund check (the 600.00 deal). Ignoring that they hadnt paid any money in to begin with.

Just a bit of info for everyone as we move closer and closer to socialized medicine. THere is currently a 17 week wait in Canada to get an MRI paid by their Govt insurance plan. There has to be a better way.

[Art]

Couple of things,

Gbear, you wrote, "As for the tax cut, I'm still against the dividend tax removal as a form of economic stimulus." Fair enough. How about then being for the dividend tax removal as a form of doing away with the same dollar bill being taxed twice? How about just on that guideline that our government shouldn't tax the same dollar twice? Would that be enough, alone, to move you? I would hope so .

As for tort reform, I am seriously torn on this. On one hand, I don't believe any smoker should be allowed to sue for anything. They are complicit in the problem at this point. They know the risks and they won't stop themselves, so it's on them. This is a major reason tort reform is necessary. However, in the end, I simply can't support this legislation.

My cousin is a highly religious man. He and his wife were trying to get pregnant because both wanted a girl. The wife was feeling sick and took a pregnancy test. It came back that she was pregnant. She went into the hospital and the doctor missed the fetus and said she wasn't pregnant. He then scraped her uterus looking for cancer. During this process, he got a tiny piece of the placenta, which is a growth cell, and he diagnosed my cousin's wife with cancer. He immediately put her on chemo. She went through 26 treatments. All the while losing her hair.

Losing weight. Yet, her belly kept growing. She kept asking how come she wasn't pregnant. The doctor said to her she wasn't pregnant and she needed to accept what was happening to her. Finally, a nurse did another test and discovered the pregnancy. My cousin's wife had NO cancer. The doctors subjected her, and the child to enormous risk. They told her upon finding she was pregnant and not sick, that she must abort the child. That it was in grave risk of being a very ill child.

But, my cousin and his wife wanted a little girl, and abortion, in their mind, can never be an option. So, they wouldn't. Even as the pregnancy progressed they wouldn't get an abortion despite urgings from their care givers about the risk the child was at. That baby was born and thusfar there are no signs of retardation or other problems. That may yet come.

The end of this story, to me, is that doctor and that hospital should be out of business. They were grossly negligent and exposed my cousin and his wife to MONTHS of mental anguish and pain and suffering. According to tort reform, they could sue for actual damages -- like lost wages. But, since there were none, they would be capped at $250,000 for the crippling emotional stress they were put under by an incompetent physician.

In the end, we can not allow doctors who do this to get off without serious financial consequences. If the tort reform law could be written to indicate that people who take full participation in their problem couldn't sue, I'd be for it. But, as it is, I do not support it today.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Not to sound mean, but anyone who contracts AIDS in the US is an idiot.

Tell that to the people who received tainted blood in the 1980's and 1990's that wasnt screened properly. Tell that to the small percentage of people who still contract it via bad blood.

Better yet, tell that to the babies born with AIDS.

Your right Kilmer, they are all idiots.

[Kilmer17]

Art, it certainly is a sticky issue. But if tort reform isnt enacted 1 of 2 things will happen.

1- The cost for those people to have a baby would become so astronomical, that they would go broke doing so.

2- Smart doctors will stop practicing rather than risk the exposure or paying the cost of malpractice insurance.

Your example is heartwrenching. But their are many examples of frivolous lawsuits that show the other side.

I dont know if tort reform in it's current proposed state is the answer, but SOMETHING needs to be done.

[Art]

Kilmer,

I know full well there are frivilous suits that demonstrate the other side of the issue, which is why in a general sense, I'm very much for the concept behind reforming how much one can glean from a lawsuit.

It's a tough issue for me because, as a generic statement, it is a view I should maintain. But, I've seen studies where 1,500 surgical instruments are left in bodies after surgery. I've seen rare reports of a doctor going nuts and carving his initials into a patient.

And, in the end, the examples, small as they may be, of grossly negligent doctors inflicting great harm or emotional stress upon their patient will win the day. I do see the benefit of reforming the system. I just would need to see a manner by which people who are irresponsibly treated and exposed to great risk due to that irresponsibility are treated differently. It's a line that will be difficult to impossible to draw.

I just know that while you CAN put a price on punitive damages, the fact is that the price we've arbitrarily placed seems very low for the extreme cases as I've described. I agree something needs to be done. I just don't agree with the particulars of this something.

[fansince62]

how about allowing judges the authority to overrule excessive awards in trivial suits? how about forcing litigants to cover all costs when nuisance suits lose? one key is to raise the risk level (i.e., financial risk) for those who pursue frivilous, ambulance chasing litigation.

[gbear]

Art,

Not surprisingly, I disagree. The money is being taxed each time it passes from one legal entity to another. If you hire a contractor to come build a house for you, do you believe he/she should have to pay income tax on the money you give him? You've already paid taxes on the money afterall.

IN the case of the dividend tax, you have a corporation making money (like your pay check) and then paying it out to inevestors as payments for the use of their investment money. In our legal system, corporations are treated as individuals. It's another case just like the contractors above, where an legal entity is paying for a service.

As a result of being treated like individuals, businesses get certain protections like the owners of the corporation not losig their house if the business owes money. To me that's FAIR. The tax revenue from the "second" taxation represents a fee to society for the insurance against possible harm to the society a business might cause by not paying debts. To not tax dividends is to give all businesses the legal protection of being separate entities without the costs. A business doesn't have to encorporate. If they don't, it's a partnership. Then the dividends are paid out without the second taxation.

IF you don't believe a dollar should ever be taxed more than once, you are advocating huge inflation. If the government can only tax money the first time it is spent instead of everytime it passes from individual to individual, the government will have to keep making money to have funds. That will cause huge inflation. I'm not for that.

Thus, I'm not for it on the FAIR grounds either.

edit

Note : I used individual and entity interchangably. That's probably technically incorrect. They should probably all read entity.

[NavyDave]

Loved the speech.

Dubba ya proposal for the hydro car is great because it took an issue from the Dems that they couldnt use.

And lets get real we'll probably have fuel cell technology before we go the hydro car route.

The Aids is noble but unless African tribes,etc are gonna change their behaviour (multiple female partners and using condoms) its not gonna work and it does seem like he is not gonna just throw money at the problem but use it for education.

This issue had the black guy who is democrat speechless and agreeing with the proposal which led me to bellieve he targeted my peeps on this proposal.

Tort reform should be the that the 250,000 is the most the lawyers can make from the lawsuit and those doctors guilty of negligence should be on a National llist just like we have for sex offenders so they cant justmove to another state or join the military and leave their history behind.

[tex]

Not a bad speech considering the circumstances. These are tough times so it is understandable that many are unhappy with ideas that send more US dollars abroad ie: Aids relief for Africa.

BTW wtf do you think powers fuel cells?

"A fuel cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device that converts hydrogen and oxygen into water, producing electricity and heat in the process."