Key points in the State of the Union

Issues that are important - how could anyone deny poor children of better educational opportunity? If this does not pass, there is something seriously wrong with the democratic party:

A new $300 million “Pell Grants for Kids” scholarship program to help poor children reach their full potential. Like the Federal Pell Grant program, which students can use to attend the public or private college of their choice, Pell Grants for Kids would offer scholarships to low-income children in underperforming elementary and secondary schools, including high schools with significant dropout rates. These scholarships would help with the costs of attending an out-of-district public school or nearby private or faith-based school.

The President will also announce that a White House Summit on inner city children and faith-based schools will be held this spring in Washington, D.C. Non-public schools, including faith-based schools, have helped to educate generations of low-income students; however, they are disappearing at an alarming rate. As we continue working to improve urban public schools through the No Child Left Behind Act, we must also work to preserve the critically important educational alternatives for underserved students attending chronically underperforming public schools. This Summit will help increase awareness of the challenges faced by low-income students in the inner cities and address the role of non-public schools, including faith-based schools, in meeting the needs of low-income inner city students.
Pell Grants For Kids Will Provide New Options For Parents Of Children Trapped In Underperforming Schools

Pell Grants for Kids would support State and local efforts to increase educational options for low-income K-12 students enrolled in the Nation’s most troubled public schools. Under the Pell Grants for Kids program, the Education Department would make competitive awards to States, cities, local educational agencies, and nonprofit organizations to develop K-12 scholarship programs for eligible low-income students attending schools that have not made adequate yearly progress under No Child Left Behind for five years, or that have a graduation rate of less than 60 percent.

Students in chronically underperforming schools could use scholarships to pay tuition, fees, and other education-related expenses at higher-performing out-of-district public schools or nearby private or faith-based schools. These scholarships would supplement aid already available through the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which would follow the child.

Pell Grants for Kids is modeled after the highly successful Federal Pell Grant program for college students. The Federal Pell Grant program provides low-income students with financial support to attend any of more than 5,000 public, private, and faith-based colleges. The same choice, flexibility, and support now available to students seeking a quality college education should be offered to low-income families with children in chronically low-performing schools.

Edited to add link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2008/initiatives/education.html

To minimize our presence in Iraq would be damaging beyond repair and reverse the current trend for Iraq’s success:

A call for continued support for our troops as they make significant gains in Iraq. The President’s strategy in Iraq has put us on the path to success. While much work remains, U.S. and Iraqi troops working together have achieved significant results, violence is down dramatically, and some political progress is being made.

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States – we must not turn our backs on the hard-won progress being made. If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened, and al Qaeda could find new recruits and new sanctuaries. A failed Iraq could also increase the likelihood that our forces would someday have to return and confront extremists even more entrenched and even more deadly. By contrast, a free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven and serve as a partner in the fight against terrorism.

Interesting facts most people don’t know about Iraq:

Violence In Iraq Has Decreased Dramatically In The Past Year

The surge is achieving its primary aims of improving population security in Baghdad and reversing the cycle of sectarian violence that plagued Iraq in 2006. Although there is much more work to be done, security has improved considerably since General Petraeus began implementing the strategy that became fully operational in mid-June. According to the U.S. military:

Monthly attack levels have decreased 60 percent since June 2007 and are now at the same levels as early 2005 and some points of 2004.

Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent since a year ago, dropping to a level not seen since the beginning of 2006.

From January to December of 2007, ethno-sectarian attacks and deaths decreased over 90 percent in the Baghdad security districts.

Coalition forces found and cleared approximately 6,956 weapons caches in 2007, well over twice the amount (2,662) cleared in 2006.

Although al Qaeda in Iraq remains a dangerous threat, its capabilities are diminished.

Over the past year, thousands of extremists in Iraq have been captured or killed, including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives.

Go here for more details:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2008/initiatives/iraq.html

Yep destroy the public school system and make schools privatized under the guise of improving the schools. What will they do for the poor ?. Wait, Bush is rich. Screw the poor. Take the money out of public schools and get them into schools with religious education. Who needs science and poor people anyway.?

Think Progress has devoted most of their front page to articles that debunk Bush’s SOTU points.

how is that “thinking Pregressively” :confused:

For the record, Bush’s tax cuts were not just for the rich or corporations. That’s just a night-time story democratic mommies tell their democratic babies to keep them loyal.

That’s the perception democrats have… they honestly think Bush’s tax cuts were only for the rich.

Now that we’ve cleared that up, make the tax cuts permenant:
To Help Ensure Long-Term Economic Growth, The Tax Relief We Have Already Passed Must Be Made Permanent

President Bush believes the most important action to ensure the long-term health of our economy is to make sure the tax relief that is now in place is made permanent. The President’s tax cuts are set to expire in less than three years. If Congress allows that to happen, we will see an end to many of the measures that have helped our economy grow – including the 10 percent individual income tax bracket, reductions in the marriage penalty, the expansion of the child tax credit, and reduced rates on regular income, capital gains, and dividends. This would mean that:

A single mom with two children and $30,000 in earnings would see her taxes go up by 67 percent.
An elderly couple with $40,000 in income would see their taxes go up by about 155 percent.
Twenty-six million small business owners would see their taxes increase by nearly 17 percent – or about $4,000 on average.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2008/initiatives/economy.html

ISTM that this “Pell Grants for Kids” is just vouchers under another name, which I think Democrats were right to oppose. I don’t have a problem with parents putting their kids into private schools, but I do have a problem with the “I got mine so fuck you” attitude that seems to go along with vouchers.

Robin

Stop wasting taxpayer money!!:

… veto any appropriations bill Congress sends him that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half. Last year, President Bush asked Congress to voluntarily cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, stop all wasteful and unnecessary earmarks, and to refrain from slipping earmarks into committee reports that never come to a vote in Congress. Unfortunately, these goals were not met – the FY08 appropriations bill passed by Congress in December 2007 contained nearly 11,700 earmarks totaling more than $17 billion. Much of this spending is wasteful. We have a duty to the American taxpayers to be more responsible with the hard earned money they send to their government.

In addition, President Bush will announce that he is issuing an Executive Order on Tuesday, January 29, directing Federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on and approved by Congress. This will effectively end the common practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language instead of placing them in the actual text of the bill.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2008/initiatives/budget.html

I’d like to think that when the next president (a Democrat…they can’t possibly screw it up this time, can they?) runs, thinkprogress.org is going to do the same thing on their website afterwards as well.
With that being said, nothing incredibly new and interesting was really brought up. I expected a little more gusto, with Bush wanting to really cement his legacy (with him supposedly being sensitive to his historical footprint) with what he wanted, instead of essentially saying “We can go forward in this country if only Congress passes ______ bill.” For a lame duck president that has uncanny control over a battered and (presently) defeated Republican party, I really expected more from Bush and the rebuttal.

Also, where does the line amongst “earmark”, “pork”, “pet project”, and “necessary addition” come in? When does one become the other, and is it only a matter of perspective?

it’s irrelevant if it’s just vouchers under a different name. the concept of pell grants for kids is innovating as well as necessary to give the underprigileged a better opportunity. Why would anyone be against that just because it appears to be like a “voucher”.

It makes no sense to me to reject this.

That’s a nice strawman you’ve knocked down there, Johnnie. I don’t think anyone claims that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich. At the same time, I don’t think you can deny that Bush’s tax cuts were largely, mainly or even overwhelmingly for the rich.

:stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: Oh, I love your sense of humor, Johnnie!

I was just watching Frank Luntz interview a focus group of independent voters in Florida, some leaned more to the right and some to the left. When Bush talked about making his tax cuts permenant, the right-leaning reacted favorable and the left-leaning reacted negatively. It turns out those leaning left believed the tax cuts were for the rich only; the right-leaning believed the tax cuts benefited everyone and stimulated the economy. There’s a real difference in beliefs here. That has to be acknowledged.

Yes, it does. It also has to be acknowledged that on this particular point the left-leaning are right and the right-leaning are wrong. We’re not even in YMMV territory here.

Just to be clear …

The State of the Union Address as posted on the White House web site, as of this time/date stamp.

The State of the Union Address as provided by CNN, as of this time/date stamp.

Let’s save belief systems for the religion threads, o.k.? What about the reality that the tax cuts mostly benefit the rich?

Why? I bought everything Bush said regarding this. It makes total sense to me. Where is he wrong?

There’s no rush on this. Rather than set a lame duck’s slapdashery in stone, why not wait until we have a new president and a congress that more closely hews to the current will of the people?

Well, unfortunately, we have no legal way to prevent delusional people from voting…as evidenced by the last two elections.

By pointing out facts Bush conveniently ignored during his SOTU address?

I don’t know enough about politics and the current economy and the situation in Iraq to comment on most of the issues, but when he brazenly praised NCLB as a success I almost had a stroke.

“Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no-one can deny its results.”

I suppose he’s telling the truth. No one can deny the results of NCLB. :rolleyes:

Argh, I was just reading an article about how the Bush administration tried to cut funding for community colleges, and now I’ve lost the link. Anyway, I’m this wasn’t the only issue he’s proven to be a hypocrite on, but it’s the one that as a teacher pisses me off greatly.

As for the vouchers, studies have shown that they don’t do much anyway, and drain funding from public schools to boot. I don’t see how taking money away from public schools so individual students can go to private schools that may or may not help them in the long run is going to solve anything.