I have had my ups and downs with Bill Clinton, but his State of the Union
speech, IMO, was GREAT!
The campaign reforms, including forcing the TV networks to give free time to
candidates, are sorely needed and long overdue.
I heard nothing I disagree with.  The only weak spot was that he didn't toot
his horn enough, didn't point out that all these republican governors' claims
to have improved their economies is bolderdash because the economies in 
democratic governor states are also up.  (John (the barbarian) Engler take
note, you ain't done doodley squat, except give tax breaks to the rich and
put General Assistance recipients on the street.  The improved Mich econ is 
due to high auto sales (witness all the overtime the UAWs are being forced to
work), and Clinton.  He also should have made more of his mention that he has
worked the largest budget deficit reduction since Truman.  He should have 
pounded that home.  Right On Brother Bill!!

79 responses total.

So what's the state of the Union?  It sounded like a campaign speech to
me.  :)

Except campaign speeches are just promises with no certainty of fulfilment.
Clinton described what has changed in the past two years, what has not,
talked about failures and lessons learned, the best interests of the American
public at large, and what he believes is most important and should be done
next.  I was pleased with the speech (and the events described, for the 
most part).
I was, as always, disappointed by TV commentators that thought the most 
important thing about it was that it was, in their opinion, too long.  Were
they really paying attention?  I was also sickened by the usual heavily
slanted and partisan response by the opposing party, obviously trying to 
undermine the president to serve their own ends.  Yuckkkk!  Where was the
Libertarian (or anyone else's) response?  Politics as usual - hurting us all.

Yes, I watch on NBC, and they had commentary by Peggy Noonan, Raygun's
speech writer: Barf.
As bad was the official republican reply by the governor of NJ:  They talk
so much about cutting taxes, but the only net winners of these schemes are 
the rich.  They talk about reducing the size and scope of government, but
could care less about putting the already very poor on the street and 
starving them.  Welfare recipients live on so little per month, it's a
shame so many Americans are so selfish and stingy that they're unwilling to
give up that very small amount in taxes per household to keep the poor 
"alive."  As far as deregulation goes, certainly there is room for improve-
ment, but the republicans want business to have no accountabilty to 
consumers and the environment.

Jim or Tim, could you link this Item to World?  Hopefully this will 
engender a healthy debate that shouldn't be lost when Winter Agora is retired.

I hope one of the fws will see this and do it.  I don't know how, and 
probably don't have the permissions.

tched a lot of people with food stamps eat better food than I could.  I know
people need assistance, but the current program does not work.  I watched a lot
of my friends from high school struggle to get by on one income but making too
much money to qualify for assistance.  They didn't have a phone and they
couldn't always pay the utility bills.  But I know other people on welfare who
get free phone and free utilities and they sit around the house all day doing
nothing. The system does not reward those who are trying to make it.  I also
watched all kinds of people sell their food stamps outside the store at half
price to get cash to buy beer while their kids looked at the food longingly.
There will always be a need for an assistance program, but the one we have
doesn't work, and it DOES need to be reformed.

Until you've watched all food stamp recipients, your experience is anecdotal
and means little to nothing.

        re # 6 The fact that people can't get by with a low level
service sector or labor job is why Clinton's call for raising the
minimum wage is long overdue. Increased wages will give people an
incentive to leave the welfare system and start working to support
themselves.

(leeann, please try to end your lines before they get too long. Grex
doesn't do word wrapping, and some people won't be able to read what
you're saying. 75 columns is about right. Thanks.

Welcome to Grex, by the way. There's also a leann who's active on Grex,
so please, people, watch out and keep them straight.  end-of-drift)

Yeah, maybe Bill is a good, populist speaker. All i have to say is......
what happend for the last two years, agian? Bye Bye Billy, you had
your chance, now let the people with an actual mandate run the govermnent.

        It was certainly a wonderful speech.  I just hope it will be
followed by some action.  So far, it has looked to me as if Clinton has
some wonderful ideas, and likes to talk abou tthem.  However, when he gets
the slightest resistence, he doesn't try very hard to overcome it.  It
seemed, even with a Democratic majority in congress, as if Clinton would
stop pushing problems because they couldn't possibly pass at the
slightiest indication of resistance from the Reppublicans.  If Clinton can
learn to stand behind his ideas, he will be a wonderful President. 
        Typical of the distortions in the Republican response was
Whitman's claim that tax cuts work, because John Engler signed the biggest
tax cut in Michigan history at about the same time Bill Clinton signed the
biggest tax increase in U.S. history.  What Whitman neglected to mention
is that less than a year after Engler passed that big tax cut, the largest
tax increase in Michigan history was passed to make up the shortfall. 
that increase actually went into effect before the tax cut did, so for the
second half of 1994 people in Michigan were being taxed almost double. 
She also neglected to mention that the tax shift, while almost making up
the money that was lost, didn't quite.  Michigan's schools are headed
towards running out of money under the new system, if it is kept around,
according to economists.  Furthermore, under Engler's new tax structure,
the Detroit schools are now constitutionally locked at a per student
spending rate of less than half of what some of the wealthier school
districts are spending now.  If John Engler is a big Republican star,
I'm really scared.  He's already done some horrible things to Michigan,
and I really hope he doesn't get the chance to work his reforms on the
rest of the country.

   I find that response very interesting, David.  Do you really think
that constructive things can occur in a short period of time?  Many of
the things Clinton wanted to do (and tried) are not of a quick nature.
The health care proposal, no matter what it would have looked like,
wouldn't have been something that got off the ground quickly.
   But Clinton certainly has waffled on many issues, and I'm not terribly
impressed with him for that reason.  But at least he was trying and still
is.  That is more than I can say for the "contract with america" which
seems to be largely about tearing things down rather than making them
better.  So with contract in hand, many things will change because of
the 140th congress.  It remains to be seen how wise acting quickly will
be.

<engage pet-peeve soapbox>
   Re waffling:  It's starting to bug me more and more how the prevailing
wisdom always seems to be that waffling on issues is deplorable.  Realize
what that means: if anyone who waffles is always doing the wrong thing,
then the only people doing right are the ones who are sure of themselves
all of the time.
   Personally, I don't trust *anyone* who's sure of him/herself all of the
time!  Is that the kind of politician we want?!  I say no!  I seem to
recall a quote from Harry Truman which went something like, "Well, we'll
try these programs, and if they don't work, then we'll try something
else."  Can you imagine a politician today saying that?  I think most of
the reason the government has so much trouble getting anything done is
that nearly all politicians are unwilling to admit it when they are wrong,
or when someone on the other side of the aisle has a good idea.
   Murphy Brown, of all things, springs to mind, because there was an
episode of that series dealing with a labor dispute, in which the
management rep and the union rep (both men) refuse to start negotiations
because doing so would be a "sign of weakness."  Murphy (Candice Bergen)
responds with "Oh, please - why don't you two just pull down your pants,
I'll get a ruler, and we'll settle this whole thing right here."
   (I hope you'll forgive me for mixing popular television with a serious
point. :))
<disengage soapbox>

Clinton campaigned on a raise in the minimum raise in 92, but I have been
told by a friend that he traded it away to some western republicans for
their votes on some logging bill.  He sure got the short end of the deal,
and let down those { poor people who are struggling to get by on $4.25 /
hour{.
Also, some congressmen introduced bills to force the media to give free time
for campaigners when Clinton had a democratic congress, but neither passed.
It's rediculous.  The airwaves belong to the people, and the media pigs use
of them is a priviledge granted by the government.  Congress should write a
bill containing both free media time and barring lobbyist contributions and
PACs, so congressmen can't argue that they need the "contributions," because
the free media time would more than make up for the loss of their bribes.

Waffling attacks have always sounded strange to me too.  the polititians
work for their constitunts, and if nobody they are representing wants
something they have said they support, then it makes sense for them to
drop their support for it.  I can just see what would happen if I told my
boss, "I said I was going to do this when I applied for the job, and I
can't go back on that.  I know nobdy here, including you , wants it
donebut I'm going to do it anyway.  In politics, that's the way to appear
tough and to avoid being attacked for waffling.  In real lifef, it would
be a good way to get fired.

re#10  The Republicans have no mandate.  It was just the electorate voting
  against "business as usual" in Washington, and I see no changes with the
  new crowd.
The next election may just flip things the other way, if my perception is
correct.
re# 13&15  I don't object to waffling either, but feel it's sad that 
  Clinton has to struggle to find a position that will sell his ideas.  I
  believe he has principles, which is more than I can say for the past few
  previous administrations, but is getting tired of being beaten up by the
  press and knocked around by the idealogical winds of Washington.  I'm 
  sick of his and others ideas being shot down on purely partisan grounds.
  And I thought "not invented here" was only a problem in business ...

Yes, as a matter of fact, a large part of the swing in party membership in 
the congress is just Southern Democrats who changed their party label or lost
their district to a republican.

What is the _actual_ minimum wage where you live?  (I don't mean the
"legally mandated" minimum, but the lowest wage employers are paying
to find people to work.)

I live in Plymouth, and the fast food places are advertising $5.00/hr., which
is well above min. wage of $4.25 legally mandated.  However, this is a fairly
affluent community, and I'm sure that alot of people in the city of Detroit
are working for ess than that.

This response has been erased.

I think fast food chains in Ann Arbor are paying $6 or more an hour; I don't 
know what jobs pay less than fast food, but I'm sure there are some.

I think some of the fast food places are paying quite well, while others
are still paying minimum wage.  As for the Ann Arbor Public Schools (one
of my employers), they have a policy saying that employees who are also
AAPS students can not be paid more than $4.45 per hour.

re #4, 20: ha.

 This item is now world 45.

Re:#10, from Davidde Alessandro Stella (orwell): You say, Bill, you're a 
good populist speaker."  I think you're trying to imply some sort of 
demogogary.  What I am saying is not demogogic, it is the words of a citizen 
of good conscience, and an eye sharp enough and experience long enough to
know b.s. when I see/hear it.  The demogogue is John (the barbarian) Engler,
preying on the resentments of over-paid mediocre people who can well afford
the taxes they pay, to get a tax re-arrangement that is a net gainer only for
the rich.  These mediocre over-paid (nearly a majority in an affluent state
like Michigan so resents the meager sub-subsistance welfare payments, but 
they are the ones on welfare, earning far more than their meager brains
and willingness to strive merits.
Davidde, are you the libertarian who's been posting garbage inferring that
markets take solve all problems?  Markets have no conscience, yea, they are
cruel and not just amoral, but anti-moral, rewarding the sleaziest.  Just 
look at television and the character of the American economy and the 
authoritarian way in which American companies are run.  Better go back to
school and learn something besides "hindmost to the devil."
Chicago Taxi Willie

i couldn't agree more that Clinton has stood by his principals, and has
only changed his support for specifics because he was responding to his
constituency and to political and technical realities.  i think that it
demonstrates his open-ness to new and better ideas.

i'm also disappointed that pundits and media critics can only see that
Clinton is not "standing up to the Republicans," instead of seeing that
he is interested in moving the Washington process to a new, more
effective level by getting both sides of the aisle to work towards
common goals.  anyone who has been involved with modern techniques
of management can tell you that the last 15 years of divisive politicing
is extremely counter-productive.

i am also pleased that he has stepped up to a role of leading social change
in this country, not just being an adminstrator.  it's about time that
a president took the responsibility of being a true leader of the people.

incidentally, white house press releases and transcripts of the president's
speeches are available on-line at http://www.whitehouse.gov.

To Tim (Yes, I *know* who you are [hint, QLB] :-) and you other liberals:
Live with it!  Get on with your lives!  Try to spin doctor it any way you 
like, but both houses of Congress are Republican for the first time in 40+
years.  That isn't any temporary "throw the old bums out" abberation.

Clinton's speach brought to mind the tune "I'm turning Japanese."  Clinton's
mouth is saying things long sought my Republican minorities.  It's only
fashionable for him to say these things now since he's got to work with
Republicans (even though with Democratic majorities in both houses he couldn't
get his health care white elephant launched - thank goodness!).  Him saying
"Give me line item veto and I'll use it" - gag me.

Clinton ran as a very conservative Democrat. Then he went liberal after
he took office. I am glad to see him returning to his campaign promises.

I am much more comfortable with a conservative Democrat than with the
anti-abortion pro-Christian-prayer-in-public-school Republicans.

You forgot assault-weapon-UNbanning, Limbaugh-loving, defense-over-spending,
Whitewater-over-investigating, capital-gains-tax-reducing,
gays-in-the-military-prohibiting, flag-ignition-criminalizing,
Rupert-Murdoch-book-contract-accepting, and Clipper-chip-promoting.  :^>

Go Rob!!!

OK, I agree with all of those but one. Those are all Republican things 
I despise except that the Republicans are right about reducing Capital gains.

So if Clinton adopts a CG reduction as an appeasement of the Republican
Congress, I will applaud. If he appeases any further, he starts to lose me.

Why has everyone taken such a liking to Republican-bashing?

They deserve it?

Actually, I could bash the left-wing Dems as easily as the right-wing
Republicans, but right now they don't have enough power to enact some
of their more objectionable ideas.  I actually support some Republican
ideas, but both Repubs and Dems have their fringe constituencies, and
most of those are what folks bash.  And it's a lot easier to find faults
than virtues :-l.

 It seems to be so weird that the Republican party has become so "perfect"
since the November elections, which for the record only 20% of voting aged
people voted in.  Clinton has tried his best to bring about a better 
change in government only to be blockaded by rehashed Republican ideas from
25 years ago.  If given his chance, Clinton can get the job done.

That's my opinion. What Clinton lacks is a personality that persuades
people that he can get the job done. Unfortunately, the necessary
personality has historically served both democratic leaders and
demagogues. 

It doesn't help that the Republicans don't seem to want to work with the
Democrats at all.  It seems that even when the Democrats have proposed
something that the Republicans supposedly support, the Republicans try to
find a way to block it so tha tthe Democrats can't take credit for it. 
There was even one bill (I can't remember which one it was), shortly after
the Republicans took over Congress, that the Democrats proposed and the
Republicans said they supported everything in it.  The Republicans still
killed it, saying it wasn't the right time yet.  The quote from one of the
Republican leaders was something along the lines of, "we have to show them
who is in charge here."

I voted for Clinton, and was pleased to have the opportunity to vote for
a conservative leaning Democrat. The Republicans are too much for me for 
all of those reasons rob and I posted (except Cap gains).

Unfortunately he went off course once elected. His midcourse correction is a
good thing. If he adheres to it, he can do this country a lot of good
in the next two years. It's not even unthinkable that he could get reelected.
I think he's taken a lot of unfair criticism. I'm quite optimistic about him.

Oh!  And like the Dems tried real hard to work with the republicans when
they were a minority.   right.  Clintons speech was laughable.  All he
did was tand there and stroke the ego's of people.  Nothing good came
out of it.  Minimum wage is a joke, adn always has been.  You can't 
expect someone to survive on 4.35 an hour, nor can they livewell on
5.25 an hour.  So why isn't the minimum wage 10.00 an hour.  or
better yet, $100,000 per year?  come on, tell me why.

If the Republicans don't blow it, the dems are gonna get their pants blown
off in the next election.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss