State of the Union

Remove all ads!

Link.

Although this year, as most years, I wonder why I bother paying much attention to it. It's the same thing nearly every year. The same old blah. About the only thing that was remarkable was Obama not saying "The State of the Union is strong."

Am I missing something? Thoughts?

 

Not really.

 

I missed the guy screaming "liar". At least that made last year's interesting.

 

My wife asked me if I wanted to watch it last night, and I felt like the Family Guy's version of Ray Romano. "I Just. Don't. Care." That's no slam against Obama, mind you, I usually like his speeches, but the caring was gone from Care-a-Lot mansion last night, and when it comes to politics, it'll probably stay that way for the next little while. LKD is sick, tired, and burned out.

 

It's a rhetorical chess game between the parties. It's interesting to see how Obama and the Dems anticipate the next move of the GOP. They have been doing a good job of cutting them off at the knees on not only message, but policy agenda, since the mid-terms. It's all politics. Despite the politics, there was some real substance in the speech. Two things are clear, at least to me: 1. SS is going to remain untouched, at least in the near future. 2. Finally, finally, defense may be cut. I heard the Tea Party guy from PA comment this morning that there are things that the military doesn't even want but that Congress is forcing on them in the defense budget. Talk about "mega pork!"

 

LKD, that's understandable. Having said that though, I don't understand why you would be expected to care, or even want to watch it. It isn't the state of your union, after all (unless you moved to the States and I wasn't aware).

 

I've said it before but it's worth repeating: Canada is in the same position as a mouse living right beside an elephant. The elephant may not have to even think about the mouse, but that mouse has no choice but to keep a close watch on even minor shifts in the elephant's position, lest he be inadvertently crushed.

 

What if the elephant farts? Elephants fart, you know.

 

All the more reason for the mouse to be vigilant! I mean, seriously, EVERY decision you Americans make has a ripple effect that covers the whole world, but especially your #1 trading partner and neighbour with whom you share the longest undefended border in the world.

Our Population / GDP: 33,487,208 / 1.287 Trillion

US population / GDP: 307,212,123 / 14.26 Trillion

Let me reiterate my point: living beside you people is a dangerous <expletiving> proposition! Without even noticing it, you can bankrupt entire sectors of our economy. We all knew during the Cold War that if it were necessary to smash through Canada to get at those commies, you'd have done it without blinking an eye, and it would have been a hot knife through butter, considering we were using decades old rifles and mortars, fer frick's sake.

We walk a fine, fine line here in the Great White North. And it's slippery, too!

 

Personally I liked the idea of a Tea Party response to the State of the Union:

http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_n...eghan-mccain-bachmann-a-poor-mans-sarah-palin

Speaking of which, isn't it about time for Sarah to get herself back into the news again?

I thought this was funny as well:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/w...te-of-the-union-2011---correspondent-rebuttal

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-26-2011/state-of-the-union-2011---republican-rebuttal

 

We have a president?

 

Just curious: What do you mean by the near future? I always figured that they wouldn't change the system in place until SS started paying out more than it was taking in. Last I checked - and granted I haven't seen much on this since the 2008 election cycle, SS would remain solvent through 2016. I'm not sure what the recent SS tax cut does to that though. I believe it was cut (for this year only) from 6.2% to 4.2%. That seems to be a hefty difference, if you were already near the point where money out exceeded money in.

The point remains, while I agree that nothing will happen with SS in the near term, I think that is only true if we define the near term as the next couple of years. It is likely going to be a major issue that will have to be tackled in the next presidential term - regardless of whether that term is served by Obama (which, IMO is still likely) or someone else.

 

With the recent economic meltdown, that figure is far from certain. We actually ran a deficit in 2010, apparently, but most economists were expecting the economy to pick up enough to show a surplus through 2016 again. It hasn't done that well, but there's still debate about where it'll end up. A further deficit in 2011 isn't impossible, and there's a chance it may never run a surplus again.

 

Aldeth - I was mostly speaking of benefits. There was a lot of talk about cutting benefits, like raising the retirement age to 70, and that seems unlikely even through the next cycle. The president has decided against the recommendations of his own commision on the deficit, which was to cut benefits for those under age 55.

The thing is SS will begin running a deficit next year because of the loss of income. But SS has been funding the general debt, and in fact, has funded more of our general debt than the Chinese have. The government owes SS something like 2.5 trillion dollars. That will have to be paid back so that SS can remain solvent through the next decade. I suspected that the government would try to cheat the SS system and seniors, but that now seems unlikely. Obama commented that he would not balance the budget on the backs of the old and the sick, and that's a good sign for both SS and Medicare.

 

While I don't think that the government will try to cheat the seniors, I also think that paying back that money also seems unlikely. It is true that the government has been borrowing for years from the SS trust fund, and that debt is the single biggest line item in our current deficit - and I believe that number is expected to hit somewhere around $14 trillion this year. The thing is, where is that money going to come from? I think it is far more likely to see an increase in the amount everyone pays into SS, or a change for the age in which you can start receiving benefits.

For starters, I think if you have a job where you can reasonably expect to continue working, it would make sense to raise the age of collection to 70. While it may be a bit much to expect a construction worker to keep on keepin' on until 70 years old, someone like me who has a desk job likely can.