Article 1 Section 7 was written well over 100 years ago and is too hard to understand. Luckily we have 9 dudes in robes who can tell us what that junk really means in today language; which for some reason still has a lot of "whereas" and "be it resolved in it".

 

Wikipedia keeps it simple for me:

“ All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. ”

This establishes the method for making Acts of Congress. Accordingly, any bill may originate in either House of Congress, except for a revenue bill, which may originate only in the House of Representatives.

 

This is our generation's Sputnik.

 

The speech was just another version of the mythical "hope and change" election slogan. I am all for hope and change but please give me some concrete to build upon, not just a bunch of rainbow crystal fairy dust.

When I listen politicians and read between the lines now days it scares me as nobody is offering any solid plans for a recovery only vague allusions to an economic and social fantasy wish list.

 

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has a serious proposal:

The Roadmap Plan | A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans

Of course he has been and will be vilified by Democrats who are offering no deficit reduction solutions.

 

I think that President Obama did a good job in conveying what the needs (immediate or otherwise) of the country are. He offered viable solutions to those issues that he mentioned. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "A healthy, educated, and well nourished labor force are the necessary prequisites to sustainable economic growth". You CANNOT be sick, dumb, and hungry and expect of compete on any level in terms of competing with the best and brightest of other nations.




atp

 

So tell me again what were his solutions for education and how is it different from what we have tried for the last 50 years with diminishing returns.

 

If they solved the education "problem " it would be hard for them to keep coming back to us for more money in order to "fix" a system that they choose to keep broken .



Ally

 

Hoss: Well-said.

High-speed rail: I don't remember the particulars, but when the high-speed between St Louis and Chicago was announced, I looked at the proposed price...for a train that would be about 18-20% faster!! It quickly became obvious that it was a feel-good jobs program for cronies in the construction industry, disguised as "public good" or "going green." California? Same thing. Florida? the one I remember (and wrote to my Congressman about) served the busy Orlando-St. Petersburg corridor. YGBSM. Even if the train could do Mach 1.69, how much time would really be saved....for the money involved? It would be cheaper...and do more good..to buy more conventional trains, with increased frequency. Hey, more train engineers, conductors, porters, ticket agents, and more jobs!! Hmmmm...maybe low-tech is good?

Terrorism: schools, shopping malls, churches, airports, libraries, busses, hospitals, gas stations...you name it: someone can walk in and blow themselves up, or drive next to it and blow up a car or truck. The more public a conveyance, or institution, the more attractive a target it becomes to the fanatical. AMTRAK is just as vulnerable, high-speed or not.

 

With all due respect to the President, I didn't hear anything of promise for any of us in this business in the SOTU. That said, I think that with such a dramatic change in the House, the "State" of the Union is going to change, and I believe it is going to change rather quickly.

Hopefully last November, we didn't commit suicide to keep from getting killed.