NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think about his speech? I think that Bush is focusing on the right stuff here, what do you think? He seems pretty bent on modernizing the US system, which looks good. Out with the old, eh? He also seems to know what he is talking about, which is good. I also saw Kerry clapping on many of Bush's ideas. Good sport. Bush seems to be looking ahead, and he seems to be pretty resonable on his ideas, and is truely focusing on the homefront issues. Good for him. It seems he wants his 2nd term to be more home focused, the way he wanted his first term before 9/11 came along. He also seems a lot more open than in previously.

Please, this isn't a random Bush bashing topic. It's about how you think the State of the Union went. Speak!

Sure i think he is touching on some important issues.. but as always, like all politicans.. he is ignoring the most important issues we face today... immigration and trade. I want to know why it is he isn't looking to reform our broken immigration and trade policies.. because it is these issues we are destroying our economy and way of life today... not 13 years from now.

Social security is important to me and i support his plan avidly.. but if bush has one fault.. its that he isn't addressing the most vital issues.

I just love his blatant hypocrisy. "Ideal of liberty" my ass. Maybe an ideal of lbierty for white, straight, protestant males.

In response to 2.
I disagree, I'm listening to the speech now, he has looked at both of those.

Well, just speaking on the bits I got from CNN (I didn't see the entire speech), it doesn't seem like a spectacular departure from anything he's said before. Whether he was a confident or skilled speaker, I couldn't say. I have heard second hand that he seemed out of his depth in those policy discussions, but given that this is Bush we're talking about, that was pretty much a given from the get-go.

I will say that his defense of Social Security reform was a bit. . .well, actually more than a bit deceptive. Basically, he claimed that stocks offered a greater return on investment than bonds did. If pressed, he'd probably point out the roughly 10% APR average return that stocks have had since 1929, which is far higher than the average rate of return for a Treasury bond. However, the reason this is deceptive because the inference most people tend to get is that such a rate is expected every year, when it is not. If you bought Dow stocks in September of 1929, you would have had to wait until 1953 until you broke even on your investment, a delay of almost 25 years. That happened again with stocks being radically outperformed by bonds from the late sixties to 1982. Don't think it can happen again? The truth is that it is happening right now: if you bought stocks on the Dow in March 2001, you are still waiting for your investment to turn a profit. Given that sporadic nature, and the fact that Bonds are garaunteed investments, I don't think Bush has any leg to stand on when he talks about how stocks are, without question, a better investment than bonds for a last-ditch savings program.