Interesting look at SOTU speech!

[CCTAU 3,536]

WEDNESDAY, January 21, 2004

THE STATE OF THE UNION

First of all ... an abbreviated Nealz Nuze today.  We got back to the hotel room after the State of the Union Message last night at around midnight. A few hours sleep and we're on the way to the White House for today's show.  Needless to say, it should be interesting.

My most vivid memory of last night's speech was the Democrats' clear hatred of the mention of anything relating to tax cuts.  It's clear that Democrats hate the idea of tax cuts for anyone but their core constituency with a blinding passion. There was applause from the Democratic side of the aisle when Bush pointed out that if the Congress didn't act to make his tax cuts permanent there would be a massive tax increase.  Amazing.  There seems to be no greater crime to a Democrat than to allow a successful person to keep one more dollar than necessary of the money they have earned from their hard work and good decision making.

After the speech I spent some time in the Capitol's Statuary Hall.  This is where the media conducts its feeding frenzy on politicians following the speech ... or are the politicians conducting a feeding frenzy on the media?  Hard to tell.  I stood next to some politicians as they shared their deepest thoughts with reporters on the President's remarks.  One thought kept going through my mind:  "Are these people really this ignorant?"

These Democrats would tell the reporters that Bush's talk of tax cuts and new spending programs (yes, there are some) was irresponsible in the face of our "massive" budget deficits.  In their public utterances Democrats lead you to believe that there are only two ways to reduce a budget deficit:

1.  Cut spending.  This is completely unacceptable to Democrats (and apparently to President Bush), which leaves us with ...

2.  Raise taxes.

Now ... to answer my own question: "Are these people really this ignorant?"  The answer is no.  They're not that ignorant ... but they think that you are.

We've talked about this before.  America operates and thrives in a free enterprise economy, yet our government-operated schools teach virtually nothing to our children about the economics of free enterprise.  So ... let me take up the slack.

Let's say you sell widgets.  You sell 1000 widgets at $100 each.  Each widget costs you to $90 to manufacture and market.  That leaves you with $10 profit for each widget.  That's a $10,000 profit at the end of the year.  You make ten grand.  But what if your personal expenses are $12,000?  You're running a $2,000 budget deficit!  Now a Democrat will try to convince you that you have only two options here.  First, you can cut your manufacturing costs by $2.00 a widget.  Now you have a balanced budget.  Second, you can increase the costs of your widget by two bucks a shot.  Bingo!  Budget balanced!

There's a third option.  You can sell more widgets.  If you sell an extra 200 widgets without increasing your personal expenses you will have killed off your budget deficit.  If you sell 500 more widgets you're going to be running a budget surplus!  Wow!  From a budget deficit to a budget surplus .. and you didn't have to raise prices or cut your manufacturing and marketing costs.  In fact, if you sell an extra 500 widgets you can even cut the price of each widget by $1.00 and still have a surplus!

Please, those of you who went to government schools .. .tell me that you get it.  You can cut your taxes (prices) but expand the economy (the number of widgets sold) and move from a budget deficit to a budget surplus!  Believe me, Democrats understand this ... but they think that you don't.  That's why they can sit there and play their absurd little "You can't cut taxes when you have a budget deficit" game.

Two more quick things:

Bush promises his next budget will only increase discretionary spending by four percent.  Why four percent?  Why not a decrease!  The first three years of the Bush presidency rank as all-time champions for government spending increases.  After three years of spending like this what's wrong with actually cutting discretionary spending?  At some point we're going to have to start reducing the size of the federal government .. or this Republic will die.  What better time than now?

Bush also came up with another plan for still more "refundable tax credits."  This one is for the cost of catastrophic health care insurance.  I hate that term.  A "refundable tax credit" is nothing but a welfare payment.  It's taking money away from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who did not.  I don't care what the money is for ... it's theft.  If we're going to expand government giveaway programs, at least have the political courage to call a welfare program a welfare program.

...AND THEN THERE WAS THE OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE

 

Boy, this was completely worthless. Looking like a couple of hosts selling jewelry on the shopping channel, Democratic house leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle sat by the fireplace and gave the Democratic response. Pelosi spoke first, and it was all down hill from there.

 

The first tall tale, told by Pelosi: "I express the Democrats' unbending determination to make the world safer for America -- for our people." Did Democrats react to the first World Trade Center bombing? The bombing of the USS Cole? What about when Sudan offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden and the Clinton administration declined? Sorry lady, check your facts.

 

It got worse. "But even the most powerful nation in the history of the world must bring other nations to our side to meet common dangers." Uhm...what about Great Britain? Australia? Of course, it has nothing to do with bringing on other nations, or even building a coalition. It has everything to do with the United Nations. That's all the liberals care about. It's amazing how this myth that we were "going it alone" continues to be perpetuated and go unchecked in the media.

 

After more hot air, she turned it over to Daschle. He went from distortions to total lies. "The massive tax cuts that were supposed to spark an economic expansion have instead led to an economic exodus." Excuse me? Has the senator not read the good economic news lately? Apparently not, but why let facts get in the way. He went on to explain that the Bush tax cuts would not make health care more affordable or reduce the number of people without insurance. It never gets through to these morons' thick skulls that our money belongs to us, and tax cuts simply mean that less of it is confiscated against our will. 

 

Typical liberal B.S. If you didn't stay up for the Democratic response, you didn't miss a thing.

 

MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING...IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE

 

The State of the Union address was half over before President Bush started spending more of our money. First up: something called the "National Endowment for Democracy." This was actually a good sign, because after signing into law the horrendous new prescription drug benefit for Medicare, who knows how bad it could have gotten when it came to more spending.

 

In addition to that program, the president also thanked congress for doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1000, thus continuing and expanding the government program to pay people for having more children. Just what we need. How is this the role of government? Why not just lower the tax rate? Better yet, why not repeal the 16th amendment authorizing the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax? I know, dream on.

 

One other proposal that is a step in the right direction, but is simply not enough: allowing people to invest their own social security money. The president  proposes only letting younger workers save part of their social security premiums. Why not all of it? Why not privatize social security entirely? People should not have to settle for a miniscule return on their money when they could be enjoying exponentially better returns on their own. Social security is the biggest fraud perpetrated on the American people in the last 50 years.

 

Oh well...it could have been worse. President Gore could have been giving the State of the Union address last night. 

 

KERRY DANCING ON THE HEAD OF A PIN

 

Of course, after the Bush's address last night, the Democrats running for President fanned out across television last night to give their response. As if we are all just dying to stay up even later and listen to them. First up, Iowa caucus winner and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. He was interviewed on ABC by Peter Jennings.

 

It started off as expected, but then Jennings asked Kerry to explain his opposition to the war in Iraq despite his vote in the senate authorizing the use of force. His answer has to be the most pathetic to date. His actual reply was that  he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but not the way the Bush administration had done it. You've got to be kidding me. He must think everyone was born yesterday if he expects that line to sell with the American people. What an idiot.

 

But getting back to the question, how did he propose we invade Iraq differently? He could have simply voted 'no,' and maintained the party line that the authorization for the use of force come from the United Nations.

 

With liberals, facts are merely an inconvenience.  I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. 

 

GENERAL WEASLEY CLARK: I NEVER SUPPORTED THE WAR

 

Over on NBC, Weasley Clark got into it with Tom Brokaw. When called out for his changing position on the war in Iraq (first supporting it, then changing his mind,) Weasley became very defensive and cut Brokaw off.  "No I didn't...check the record." Of course like everyone else, Brokaw had checked the record. From testimony in front of congress to statements on TV, Weasley sure did seem like a Republican that supported the war not that long ago.

 

If the liberals really think Clark is their guy because of his military credentials, they need to think again. Sooner or later his antics in Kosovo that got him fired will come out.  All it will take is a little opposition research, and this guy will be exposed for the space cadet that he is. Or maybe all they need to do is roll the tape in TV ads of Clark praising Bush, Cheney and Powell as an "excellent team."

 

Remember when Weasley said he thought time travel was possible? He needs to go back in time and start his campaign over. 

 

LINK

[CarolinaTiger 0]

some good stuff, CCTAU.

i wish more conservatives would hold bush's feet to the flame re/ all the spending....

ct

[TitanTiger 21,238]

Has a federal budget ever actually decreased from the prior year's amount? I mean, I know all the mindless blather that Democrats say about "draconian cuts" in their pet-program-of-the-month. But educated people know that what they really mean is the Republicans had the stones to suggest that something grow at a lesser rate than they feel it should have. They propose that something should grow by 8 percent, the Republicans say let's grow it at 5%, and the Dems say, "How dare you cut [insert pet program here] by 3%! Think of the children!" or some such nonsense.

I'm talking about ACTUAL decreases. Has a federal budget ever gone down from the year before?

A corollary to that question would be...has a social program ever been deemed to be no longer necessary and thus been ended?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

...has a social program ever been deemed to be no longer necessary and thus been ended?

i do believe that dividing by 0 will be accomplished before that occurs, TT.

ct

[Tigermike 3,711]

There seems to be no greater crime to a Democrat than to allow a successful person to keep one more dollar than necessary of the money they have earned from their hard work and good decision making.

He has them pegged!

One thought kept going through my mind:  "Are these people really this ignorant?"

Now ... to answer my own question: "Are these people really this ignorant?"  The answer is no.  They're not that ignorant ... but they think that you are.

Bush promises his next budget will only increase discretionary spending by four percent.  Why four percent?  Why not a decrease!

Great question and the spending wories me.

...AND THEN THERE WAS THE OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE

this was completely worthless.

AMEN

Pelosi spoke first, and it was all down hill from there.

It's hard to imigine anything worse than her.

After more hot air, she turned it over to Daschle. He went from distortions to total lies.

That's normal for him.

Typical liberal B.S. If you didn't stay up for the Democratic response, you didn't miss a thing.

Jennings asked Kerry to explain his opposition to the war in Iraq despite his vote in the senate authorizing the use of force. His answer has to be the most pathetic to date. His actual reply was that  he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but not the way the Bush administration had done it.

With liberals, facts are merely an inconvenience.  I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. 

GENERAL WEASLEY CLARK: I NEVER SUPPORTED THE WAR

Remember when Weasley said he thought time travel was possible? He needs to go back in time and start his campaign over.

Does Ole Wes flip flop as often as Dr. Dean?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Did anyone but me think Hillary looked like she had just rolled out of bed to come to the Capitol Building? What a HORRIBLE hair day she was having!! And her expression - like she had been sucking on lemons!!

And what was up with the yellow rose corsage? Hope she wasn't trying to win over Texans with that thing...

I know, I know - I can't stand her, but you gotta admit, from a purely female perspective, she looked B-A-D.

[CCTAU 3,536]

Did anyone but me think Hillary looked like she had just rolled out of bed to come to the Capitol Building? What a HORRIBLE hair day she was having!! And her expression - like she had been sucking on lemons!!

And what was up with the yellow rose corsage? Hope she wasn't trying to win over Texans with that thing...

I know, I know - I can't stand her, but you gotta admit, from a purely female perspective, she looked B-A-D.

Like I said, I thought Pelosi's dentures would pop out at any time. One more facelift and she'll be Mrs.ED.

[rexbo 104]

Did anyone but me think Hillary looked like she had just rolled out of bed to come to the Capitol Building? What a HORRIBLE hair day she was having!! And her expression - like she had been sucking on lemons!!

And what was up with the yellow rose corsage? Hope she wasn't trying to win over Texans with that thing...

I know, I know - I can't stand her, but you gotta admit, from a purely female perspective, she looked B-A-D.

Jenny can get away with this, if one of us guys had made a comment on her appearance we would have gotten blasted about the releveance of her looks versus her capabilty as a Senator. Not Jenny, but I bet some of our liberal friends would have jumped us as male chauvinist pigs.

But speaking of appearance, doesn't the sight of Ted Kennedy just make your skin crawl? Bush may have gotten his opportunites based on his last name, but at least he has done something with it, not just sitting around getting fatter and drunker and uglier like ole Teddy...

[BamaGrad03 0]

I got sick and Tired of seeing Kennedy Roll his eyes and shake his freaking head...as if he disagrees with ANYTHING on principal...he has none.

[Tigermike 3,711]

Did anyone but me think Hillary looked like she had just rolled out of bed to come to the Capitol Building? What a HORRIBLE hair day she was having!! And her expression - like she had been sucking on lemons!!

I know, I know - I can't stand her, but you gotta admit, from a purely female perspective, she looked B-A-D.

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

Moderators ... I protest! Tigermike is posting obscene pictures!

[MDM4AU 338]

Is that what they showed Dean during his speech to make him squeal like a school girl?

Nah! Dean's just plain crazy, but that pic is HIDEOUS!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

My Hillary comments have nothing to do with who she is - I PROMISE that I would have said the same about any woman that KNEW she was going to be on international television and STILL came out looking that bad, ( D ) or ( R ). For example, I was not sure at first if I liked what Liddy Dole had done to her hair, but it grew on me. I would probably have said that about any MAN that was sitting where the Hildabeast sat and still looked like crap. Hillary can look semi-attractive when she wants to - but that was just awful. You don't have to be a supermodel - but she could have at least brushed her hair and put on some lipstick for pete's sake. It has nothing to do with her abilities as a Senator - which I question every day anyway.

And Kennedy - he always makes me want to throw up. I could say the same about him that I said abt Clinton, but he ALWAYS looks that bad and to mention it would be redundant.

Laura Bush, on the other hand - TOTALLY beautiful and elegant. A real class act.

[tigereyes 19]

I glad to see that some else reads Boortz. I read it every morning when I finish my Auburn football. Alot of morning I listen to him over the internet. He is in Washington this week and has had some good guest. He interviewed Colon Powell one day this week.

[tigereyes 19]

Neal Boortz talked about Bobby Lowder this morning. He picked up on him in the O-A News article about Walker. BL is behind a Wal-Mart being built in Alabaster. Alabaster city council kicked the people off their land to build the Wal-Mart, that why he is interested. Private property rights is a big issue to him.