How to enjoy the State of the Union Address

[FormerLurker]

With the State of the Union Drinking Game, of course!

http://www.drinkinggame.us/


CHEERS!

[dmz]

I don't know about the ethics of mixing drinking and punditry, but here at dmz central it's CSPAN on the ASDL, Quail Springs IPA and a shipload of OCR.

OK?

[sammi jo]

An amazingly effective and well-delivered speech promoting global fascism by stealth, couched in the terminology or 'freedom, democracy and liberty'. It sounds wonderful, if you believe he is sincere. I doubt if anyone can name just one instance where liberty, democracy and freedom had been enhanced anywhere on the globe as a result of the Bush Administration's domestic and foreign policies.

[Towel]

Is this going to be the offical SoTU thread? I tried to avoid watching it; I knew it would just rile me up. Watching Bush speak always does. But I accidentally channel-surfed onto it for three minutes, and even that was enough to leave me in a foul mood.

1. He tried to take credit for doubling the NIH's budget. a) this wasn't his idea, not by a long shot; b) he allowed the circa-1998 plan to finish in 2003, but only on a technicality (one-time funds to build a USAMRIID biosafety building); and c) after that, his budget CUT NIH funding. Never mind the whole politicization-of-science thing. That's a whole 'nother story.

2. News flash: Bush accepts that 2 - 1 does not equal 4! But it does if you do it gradually! 2- 0.25 - 0.25 - 0.25 - 0.25 DOES equal 4! Rewrite the laws of mathematics!

3. Life, life, life. But get ready for a ban on therapeutic cloning and stem cell research (and IVF, if you take him literally). Actually, the many Dems standing and applauding this pissed me off even more than him saying it.

4. Getting to see David Souter chuckle at the "activist judges" remark was priceless. I hope that production editor gets a big bonus. I'm also glad he dropped the campaign-season charade of neither supporting nor opposing a gay-marriage ammendment.

5. He pronounced "rather" as "rAHthur". When did he start admitting he's the eldest son of an upper-crust, blue-blooded-as-there-is New England family?

For the rest that I didn't see, I think I can safely take sammi jo's word for it.

[Scott]

I watched the last two weeks of NYPD Blue I had taped.

[FormerLurker]

I enjoyed the very audible booing of Bush's UNTRUE statement that "Social Security will be bankrupt by 2018".

It's like Iraq all over again - use FUD to describe an "imminent" (but not really) crisis that demands immediate action, and then propose taking action that makes the crisis worse, instead of better.

Currently, Social Security is running a hefty surplus; the payroll tax brings in more dollars than what goes out in benefits. By law, Social Security invests that surplus in Treasury securities, which it deposits into a reserve known as a trust fund, which now holds more than one and a half trillion dollars. But by 2018, as baby boomers retire en masse, the system will go into deficit. At that point, in order to pay benefits, it will begin to draw on the assets in the trust fund.

The debate over Social Security's solvency is really two debates. The first is over how long the trust fund will last. The law requires the Social Security Administration to estimate its financial condition for 75 years into the future, and the agency's conclusions depend on the assumptions it makes about what America will look like decades hence -- how much people will earn, how large their families will be, how long they will live.

Politicians and other commentators tend to speak about these long-range trends, or at least about Social Security's finances, with an air of precision. This is almost amusing, since few economists can predict the swings in the federal budget even a year in advance. Joshua Bolten, head of Bush's Office of Management and Budget, said of Social Security last month, ''The one thing I can say for sure is that if left unattended, the system will be unable to make good on its promises.'' But the Social Security Administration itself pretends to no such certainty. Its actuaries (about 40 are on staff) frankly admit that the level of, say, immigration in 2020, or of wages in 2040, is impossible to forecast. ''The only thing we are sure of is that it won't happen precisely as we project,'' says Stephen Goss, the chief actuary at the agency. And the trustees' annual report, which is based on the actuaries' analysis, takes pains to say that it is not making a prediction. It makes a projection -- three different ones, actually -- that amount to informed but very rough guesses. The agency's best guess, labeled its ''intermediate'' case, is that the system will exhaust its reserves in 2042. At that point, as payroll taxes continue to roll in, it would be able to pay just over 70 percent of scheduled benefits. That would leave a substantial deficit, but one that Congress could easily avert if it were to act now when the projected problem is more than a generation away.

What's more, there is a strong case to be made that the agency is erring on the side of being overly pessimistic. If its more optimistic projection turns out to be correct, then there will be no need for any benefit cuts or payroll-tax increases over the full 75 years.

No one can definitively predict that outcome, either, of course, but David Langer, an independent actuary who made a study of Social Security's previous projections compared with the actual results in 2003, thinks the ''optimistic'' case is its most accurate. Over a recent 10-year span, the trustees' intermediate guesses turned out to be quite pessimistic. Its optimistic guesses were dead on, and its pessimistic case -- sort of a doomsday situation -- was wildly inaccurate.

And, contrary to widespread belief, recent demographic trends have been modestly better (from an actuary's gloomy standpoint) than anticipated. For instance, longevity hasn't increased as much as expected. Partly as a result, since 1997 the agency has pushed back, by 13 years, the date at which it projects its reserves will be exhausted. In other words, as the cries of impending doom started to crescendo, the guardians of the system have grown more optimistic.

[Gene Clean]

The best way to enjoy it is turn the TV off and crack a beer open.

[Stoo]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/xxx-stateoftheunion/ ? :)

[thuh Freak]

i thought it was very interesting and i liked a lot of what he said. not all of it, of course. but a lot more than i thought i would. for example, i don't believe anything he says about the current SS "crisis", but i would appreciate a more right-leaning-than-the-current-system. i'd like to be more in control, and self-reliant for my retirement. the system was made for the depression, and it should obviously stay (ya know, just in case the black thursdays come back in style}. but, doesn't it make sense to relieve the benefits or lower costs somewhat, especially when the country is {pretty} economically stable, and a huge portion (i presume majority) of the country is capable of providing for their own retirement. idk what the democrats plan is (for that matter, i dont really know what the republican plan is, beyond the bush speech). maybe dems are for a reasonable mod. i'm starting to rant though, so i'll stop.

but then again, i'm thinking that democrats are a dying party. they couldn't take back the presidency, after all that shit he put us through. the bush2 regime was the worst one i can remember (well, i aint that old). but, some of bush's (or the right-side's) ideas are reasonable, if not horribly maligned by their implementation. im starting to think that it'd be a good idea for left-leaners in general to join the republican party. not because we are welcome, not necessarily because you like all or even any of their platform. but because they are the ones who can get elected. once in the party, we could change it from the inside. then, at least, the majority of republicans wouldn't be slack-jawed yokels. :p (this is a joke; of course those guys would still have the majority ;)). if successful, the republican party might become more centered (as a result of two "polar" parties coming together into one).

never mind me. i'm just high and stupid.