state of the union
I’m not a political person- - ha- - I am neutral, but I’m quite opinionated. I guess that’s not good, so we’ll consider this a flaw of mine. So, I watched most of the State of the Union address. I am commenting on the display of a bit of theater, a bit of background humor, as well as the little slaps in the face that one could get from it, if you really watched. I wasn’t paying rapt attention; I was practicing my machine, taking down all I can; President Bush talks slow enough, and the “courteous” applause surely allowed me to catch up. Yet, as I was somewhat listening, I realized the divide in the country and capitol hill, and how the views of the country do not really affect what goes on in politics. Before commenting on the new “wonderful” social security plan, a little aside.
There’s always going to be the people who originally want to change the world and make it better, but once they make it to Washington they realize it’s political suicide to get the issues that they really want. Well they figure it out before hand, and that’s why they make it to Washington. Perhaps when they’re about to retire they make their final push, but that’s when they’re retirirn and no one really cares about their issues anymore. They want to keep the power and their political life. So back to what happened that night.
The only times when everyone is united in applause, the standing ovations - everyone being the elected leaders of the country, not the country per say - was when he talked about supporting the troops, making sure that everyone has health care, that’s quite a mirage, but it’s nice to say. Around those points in time, one noticed the little smirks in the background, what I like to call the “yeah, right” smirk by the Vice President and Speaker. You even saw it on President Bush, what he calls his swagger, especially during the slap in the face comments, the ones where all the Republicans realized, “hey, we can pass these laws even though they might make no sense at all because we have a majority. For instance, social security.
Just because FDR came up with it, does it have to be destroyed? My father has maxed his social security every year for, I don’t know, the past 20 years. Each year it takes a little longer to max out, showing how much they take and how much trouble it’s in. I really can’t see how this new plan can pass. Everyone, except for the majority of Republicans who run the country say it will destroy social security or all the Americans that rely on it. Now, I’m no economist, but I’m thinking of the past, let’s say 1929. Now, if everyone’s privatized social security fund is in the stockmarket, or even so-called “safe” mutual funds, bonds, whatever, what if it crashes. “Well, we have a plan for that too. The government will insure the money.” That’s a very nice idea. Yet, if the baby boom generation is all privatized , how could the government possibly cover all that money loss. The government is already in a half trillion dollar a year debt, which that debt will be cut in half by 2009. Ooooo, yay!!! Once there’s a surplus does that mean those debt’s will be paid off? Or will that dollar continue to go down? Isn’t it wonderful? I can get almost 2/3 of a euro for my dollar. So, the government will cover the crash by printing and giving more worthless money to all of us bankrupt 65 and 70 year olds. The upwards of 100 to 200 thousand dollars that is given by each working American over a lifetime will be given away and invested and lost and all these lovely people won’t get their few hundred dollars a month. Okay. You know, social security is quite ingenious despite its flaws and the attacks on it. If run properly and the former surpluses were put in to it, this privatizing may never even have been spoken about. And, I really don’t understand how tax cuts get bigger as the budget gets bigger. Government sometimes boggles my mind; I guess that’s why it’s interesting.
I sometimes wonder if the country supports a politician, truly supports. Are they just picking the lesser of two evils? Just back your party, both of which are going further apart from each other. Do they have to take completely opposite viewpoints on every issue? Is it just for the sake of debating and fighting? It reminds me of the stupid debates we had in class. You just had to back whatever issue assigned to you even it didn’t make sense or you didn’t believe in it at all. So, people are just assigned Republican and Democrat so that the little classroom debate can continue.
Yet, I continue to think the lesser of two evils isn’t in office, but I’m neutral. The more I look at human government, the more I long for God’s Kingdom. So, I guess I’m not neutral. I support that.
There’s always going to be the people who originally want to change the world and make it better, but once they make it to Washington they realize it’s political suicide to get the issues that they really want. Well they figure it out before hand, and that’s why they make it to Washington. Perhaps when they’re about to retire they make their final push, but that’s when they’re retirirn and no one really cares about their issues anymore. They want to keep the power and their political life. So back to what happened that night.
The only times when everyone is united in applause, the standing ovations - everyone being the elected leaders of the country, not the country per say - was when he talked about supporting the troops, making sure that everyone has health care, that’s quite a mirage, but it’s nice to say. Around those points in time, one noticed the little smirks in the background, what I like to call the “yeah, right” smirk by the Vice President and Speaker. You even saw it on President Bush, what he calls his swagger, especially during the slap in the face comments, the ones where all the Republicans realized, “hey, we can pass these laws even though they might make no sense at all because we have a majority. For instance, social security.
Just because FDR came up with it, does it have to be destroyed? My father has maxed his social security every year for, I don’t know, the past 20 years. Each year it takes a little longer to max out, showing how much they take and how much trouble it’s in. I really can’t see how this new plan can pass. Everyone, except for the majority of Republicans who run the country say it will destroy social security or all the Americans that rely on it. Now, I’m no economist, but I’m thinking of the past, let’s say 1929. Now, if everyone’s privatized social security fund is in the stockmarket, or even so-called “safe” mutual funds, bonds, whatever, what if it crashes. “Well, we have a plan for that too. The government will insure the money.” That’s a very nice idea. Yet, if the baby boom generation is all privatized , how could the government possibly cover all that money loss. The government is already in a half trillion dollar a year debt, which that debt will be cut in half by 2009. Ooooo, yay!!! Once there’s a surplus does that mean those debt’s will be paid off? Or will that dollar continue to go down? Isn’t it wonderful? I can get almost 2/3 of a euro for my dollar. So, the government will cover the crash by printing and giving more worthless money to all of us bankrupt 65 and 70 year olds. The upwards of 100 to 200 thousand dollars that is given by each working American over a lifetime will be given away and invested and lost and all these lovely people won’t get their few hundred dollars a month. Okay. You know, social security is quite ingenious despite its flaws and the attacks on it. If run properly and the former surpluses were put in to it, this privatizing may never even have been spoken about. And, I really don’t understand how tax cuts get bigger as the budget gets bigger. Government sometimes boggles my mind; I guess that’s why it’s interesting.
I sometimes wonder if the country supports a politician, truly supports. Are they just picking the lesser of two evils? Just back your party, both of which are going further apart from each other. Do they have to take completely opposite viewpoints on every issue? Is it just for the sake of debating and fighting? It reminds me of the stupid debates we had in class. You just had to back whatever issue assigned to you even it didn’t make sense or you didn’t believe in it at all. So, people are just assigned Republican and Democrat so that the little classroom debate can continue.
Yet, I continue to think the lesser of two evils isn’t in office, but I’m neutral. The more I look at human government, the more I long for God’s Kingdom. So, I guess I’m not neutral. I support that.