Tuesday, January 29, 2008

The State of the Union --Bush's Address--Excellent!

What did you all think of the President's State of the Union Address?

I wonder if the speakers have teleprompters for their speeches because Bush never seemed to be looking at anything –not even teleprompters –or reading –and it was a well-articulated, polished delivery. With all the pressures of that office and all the negative publicity, one wonders that he could memorize such a speech –or even deliver it so well –if he were the dolt his opponents claim him to be.

Did anyone see the Democrats’ follow up? I went to finish some dishes and missed it, I guess –or if it was much later, I went to bed. Who gave it?

I don’t think the dems do themselves any favors when they look frosted over by everything the pres. says –even things they should agree with politically. They did manage to give a standing ovation to our troops and supported the almost 100 per cent increase in Veterans’ benefits ushered in during Bush’s term. I think they also stood for his statement on research and cloning –and the protection of human life in research. If they did, that’s surprising, because they so want to protect abortion as a right that they have trouble acknowledging the sanctity of life in general as regards research, e.g.

At least , our behavior in congress is far better than the British parliament –what a circus they have with their personal insults to each other and making fun of each other!

What conservatives wonder about is Bush’s compassion that leads him to offer big gov’t solutions with big price tags –at the same time offering to shut down wasteful spending. He boasts of the money we have earmarked for compassionate causes –and he spoke of a humane remedy needed for problem of illegal immigration. He told of a plan to balance budget by 2012 --or was it debt? if we stay on his course. I think it was budget and I don't recall any solution offered for the debt. But I was a bit distracted at some points.

But he said no tax increases –and that he will veto any of those along with any un-voted earmarks sneaked into bills –and one of the interviewed focus group ladies afterward said we have to increase taxes for the debt and the deficit –increase them on the rich, that is, and the corporations, etc. –And others countered with the fact that EVERY time taxes are lowered, the economy gains –and thus the tax coffers of the gov’t get more money than they get if they tax us higher –and there are more jobs as well when lower taxes stimulate the economy.

I do think that our gas companies, however, should ignore the market and lower prices just to help their country –because, as I understand it, they have made an additional killing over the high prices –no matter what they claim dictates the prices.

I don't like to hear about exorbitant severance packages for CEO's whose companies bankrupt --I assume the boards that vote these packages also made a killing --and the workers are just out of luck. Even as a Republican, I don't like excesses of corporate greed -- or Congressional greed. What one term members of congress get for retirement is ridiculous. We should make them reform, bring it to a vote, and throw out everyone of them that votes himself a raise or refuses to reduce their exorbitant pension plan.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


steve said...

"One wonders that he could memorize such a speech –or even deliver it so well –if he were the dolt his opponents claim him to be."

It doesn't supprise me considering he's given the same speech for the last 4 years.

Barb said...

O piffle! Say, was that you on the French blog with the baby joke? that wasn't funny?

Fonso_2006 said...

It was a great speech and I look forward to not having my taxes raised under this president and the next, if it is and honorable person (basically if it is not Obama or Clinton).

Yankee Doodle said...

I agree. I like that speech, especially the ending. His optimism and the emphasis on trust are what we need right now.

steve said...

I wish they would do away with ALL taxes and just eliminate the federal government. Why don't we start a tax rebellion right here and pledge to throw our W2's and 1040's in the Potomac as a gesture and just stop paying those taxes. And when they come to get us we'll form baracades and take the fight into the streets. Who is with me?!!

Barb said...

I think you are being sarcastic, Steve? But remember, that the top 5 % of the taxpayers pay 1/2 of all the income tax --right? So if you are not in that category, don't feel sorry for yourself. I don't mind paying a fair share --and I don't really mind that the rich pay more since they make more which they would with a flat tax, as well-- a flat tax on the middle and upper classes would sure be simpler -- and you might be able to eliminate much gov't cost by eliminating most of the IRS --if the taxes came out of the paychecks and deductions were still pre-calculated for dependents, etc.

Actually, the thought of tax reform is daunting in itself. Maybe the present system is as fair as it gets -- I just think they need to make a distinction between the supre rich and the well-off when they talk about increases. Jay Leno and Letterman - earn 10 times more in one year than the rest of us will see in our lifetimes. As do many famous wealthy people. Go ahead and tax the socks off of them. But leave me alone! The rest of us should be able to sock some away for our retirements, health care, etc. and be able to help our kids so they don't have to take from the gov't.

kooz said...

Now...Hillary wants to garinshee our wages if we fail to get healthcare coverage. Democrats are all about taking our money and making government bigger and more powerful. All under the guise of helping the less fortunate.

That being said, Bush has lost all credibility with me...he is not fiscally conservative at all. So, we will be left voting for a bunch of candidates who will ruin this country. The three democrat liberals, OBAMA, CLINTON and MCCAIN or the supposed GOP CONSERVATIVE MITT ROMNEY.

The one guy (Ron Paul) who would bring real change (for the good) is silenced by the media. I'm sick of Dems and Republicans.

Barb said...

Kooz --which Kooz are you? the real one or the other?

Would Ron Paul choose constructionist judges who would not make law like Roe vs. Wade, denying the right to life of fetuses? Would he legitimate (verb) gay marriage? I didn't think I could agree with his views --but I didn't study him. It was bad enough to see some liberal bloggers sing his praises. Couldn't be too good.

Actually, hillary sounds like Mitt if she would mandate healthcare coverage. That's what he proposed in his state --mandated health insurance like car insurance --and if you really couldn't afford it, then you'd be on a gov't plan (paid for by other taxpayers.) He noted that people who could afford to buy the insurance were choosing to not do so --and if they had a major medical emergency, they wanted someone else to pay for it.

Too many want a nanny state.

steve said...

"Too many want a nanny state."

And that's worse than having a nanny insurance company I suppose?

On my insurance plan I can only go to doctors and hospitals that are in my insurer's network. Once I get to the doctor or hospital I can only get treatment or procedures if it is pre-approved by the insurance company. So basically my life's hands are at the whim of a bean counter at Medical Mutual. And we see where that sort of thing leads on a daily basis with life saving treatment routinely denied by insurers. The states motive is to provide you a service as efficiently and economically as possible so that you will re-elect the people who run the program. The insurance companies who now run our health care industries motive is to DENY coverage whenever they can to save money and make a profit. Which is better? I already know what you're gonna say... Your husbands a doctor... you have no idea what it is like to live pay check to pay check and be at the mercy of an insurance company.

Barb said...

I do think healthcare needs help, but not more gov't. Gov't is why the insurance companies are run the way they are. Gov't should reduce the lawsuit potential --and that would help costs immensely. Too many lawyers do make their money by exorbitant charges to doctors and patients and insurance companies.

But people do not want to pay what good healthcare really costs --not in their insurance premiums nor in their taxes. Some of the ins. companies, however, are better than others --and some policies are cheaper --letting you pay more for routine visits and co-pays, etc. What you want is a good plan for major medical expense like pregnancy. There is a Christian plan advertised in recent World magazine --I don't know if it's one I knew about before, which was a network of Christians paying insurance --or if it was a donor-based care network. I would still want a major medical plan with a normal insurance company.

My husband says that gov't is responsible for the high charges of office visits --because they only pay a fraction of what the doctor charges. The doctor charges, knowing what the gov't will do with it --but then the gov't says that they should get a special price --and that the doctors and hospitals have to make the uninsured, uncovered-by-gov't patients, pay the full price --otherwise, gov't will pay even less. Gov't insists on paying less than what is charged to the general public. And many docs feel they can't sustain their practices on the gov't alone. Ins. companies also contract to pay less than the doctor's normal charge.

Some docs get frustrated and take only fee-for-services --no group or gov't plans. I wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper in the long run! without all the paper pushers --but then, those people would be out of a job.

Tell your doctor if insurance is refusing to cover something as my husband will call the company and insist that something was necessary if they are disputing it -- and know your policy. My son has a 2500 deductible? or something like that --the cheapest we could get him, as a healthy person--so that he would be covered hugely for a hospital stay or lifetime problem --but we thought we could afford to cover him for his routine stuff or minor illness up to $2500 per year --in part because he IS healthy. But he had some bloodwork and physicals to get for his schooling --and we had to pay it --in the hundreds--as he is full time student too old to be on our policy--and we have this big deductible for him. So far, his policy has covered zilch --but that's the way we bought it --just for crisis care, long term situations --that he isn't likely to have.

I have a policy just like anyone else's --Paramount/pro-medica --and pay co-pays for drugs and visits. But I do get free samples --as do many patients. It is a perk for docs and those who work for doctors - and many patients --and you may work for doc some day? We can't get samples of everything --and we do pay co-pays for drugs as needed at pharmacies just like others.

Humane corporations put some of their profits into health insurance --and pay the taxes that help the poor, as well.

I do understand that especially for young families starting out, whose children see doctors often, everything is too expensive --and the lifestyles are expensive, too -with many getting into credit card trouble for eating out a lot, entertainment, clothes, etc. And now gas is a choker.

I wish the gas companies would give us a break --but others would say we should stop our wasteful driving and do more carpooling, better planning, etc.

Jeanette said...


If you get your health insurance through your work one of two things is happening: a)The company is self-insured and pays the insurance company to administer the plan the way your company wants it administered or b) you work for a small company and they are dictated to by the insurance company and buy what they can afford to buy and still stay in business.

I'm in a managed care program too, but I can go to an out-of-network doctor or medical facility as long as I pay a higher deductible.