perfidy

I was very happy with his defense of the War on Terror so far - and happy that he said he would restrain the increase of discretionary domestic spending to 4%. Making tax cuts permanent would be a very good thing.

The rest was pretty much window dressing to me. I was not amused by the drug testing, steroid testing, and several other schemes.

I don't think that we need any new tactics in the war on terror, as we've reached a point where we need to follow through on what we've started. Obviously, we can adjust our tactics on the micro level, but the overall strategy is fine - for now. Eventually, we'll need some direction on our strategy toward other nations on our list. I was very disappointed that Bush didn't specifically mention the Iranian people and their hopes for democracy. A strong show of support for them would have been as powerful as Reagan's was for the captive citizens of Eastern Europe.

I didn't think that his comments on gays indicated that they are less worthy than others - but marriage ... ahhhgghhh. I'm still conflicted on that one.

And of course, God is on our side, and our cause is just. And we will have the strength of ten because our hearts our pure, too. I feel mightier already.

And Christ, Nancy Pelosi looks like the living dead! That was the most insipid, lackluster and pathetic democratic response I've ever witnessed. I could barely refrain from destroying my TV in anguish.

And Ted Kennedy didn't look very good whenever the camera flipped over to his whisky-worn visage. Show some respect for the office, even if you think what the president is saying is poo. I have to admit that Hilary did a better job of concealing her disdain than last year.

Yeah, but that all's not enough. A Republican president is going to curtail spending growth-- to 4%.

Also, where was the Environment?

As many pundits have observed, you can throw out all the statistics you want to prove that the economy is doing well, but would some acknowledgement that we're not out of the woods yet, that many people still don't have jobs or are financially screwed be out of line? I seem to remember a time, a Bush, a father, and an economy, stupid.

I never liked Bush, for a variety of reasons, but don't connect him to his State of the Union address. It's like an author giving his own book a glowing review, or maybe an academician giving himself tenure for his superlative contributions. In other words, it's fantasy with little bearing on real life.

I won't vote for Bush either but the Dems don't do much for me, primarily because most of them are candyasses. Except Dean. He scares me, man.

I can understand people who feel that the Bush economy put them out of work (not that I believe them all, but I can understand the sentiment)... what I don't hear clearly from Dems, in a convincing manner, is how exactly they can give people work.

As for the election in November... Go McCain!

Oh I agree - 4% is inadequate. But it's hella better than 8%. The environment is all around you, Johno. Sure, acknowledgement would have been nice - but it doesn't change the fact that we are clearly moving strongly out of the recession.

Well, yes. But I'm weary of the inadequacy, and the little festering bits of nanny-state-ism that keep cropping up. I'm done.

I caught "meet...my...veto" and the whole "we gotta deal with steroids" bullshit.

This President's whole schtick is saying one thing, and doing something entirely different.

I looked up GDP calculation the other day, and there are many theories about how to calculate it. We treat GDP as if it's some rock-solid number. It's not.

For example, if a small company in San Francisco fires 15 American coders then outsources their jobs to India, does that company's revenue still count towards GDP in exactly the same manner? As far as I can tell, yes, it does.

Spending increases this year were at around 8%, but that does NOT include the war, which added another 4% or something like that.

Saw a study the other day that showed the total average compensation package to a soldier in the US Army was approximately $99,000, when cash and non-cash compensation are put together. The non-cash comp is cheaper goods on bases, free health care (for life if you're there long enough), housing, and a number of other benefits. Cash compensation is at 40% of that, or around 40k.

Ross,
That's an interesting study you mention. I wonder how the $59,000 in non-cash comp corresponds to the market forces at play in the real, ie, non-military, economy. In other words, would $59,000/yr for all of us buy us medical care, housing, slightly cheaper goods, and free (or mostly free) food, etc?

Consider also that military housing is ghetto-lite for families (barracks life is ghetto-moderate); and the free health care is good if you're broken or bleeding; otherwise it's.... marginal. And Army food is...well, it's nutritious.

It's starting to sound like the armed forces are getting shafted, that they could get ghettos and crummy food and borderline doctors for a hellavuh lot less than $59,000 per man per year.

The CBO report that makes these figures takes into account retirement stuff too, which is partly why the number is high. Makes you think, though.

I should have posted the link:

[url=http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4978&type=1]http://www.cbo.gov/ftpd…]

The CBO site is sometimes the only site you ever need. Maybe it's not so hot looking forward in time. It kicks ass for looking backwards.