The State of Disunion
Jan. 31st, 2002 01:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
scottobear"And the war on terrorism..."
What about the jobs, George?
"... and military spending..."
What about the jobs, George?
"... and we're all good patriots..."
But what about the jobs?
*thunderous applause*
Color me unimpressed. It isn't that I don't support military spending, because I do. But the words I want to focus on are fiscal responsibility. We have states running deficits, high unemployment, giant corporate bankruptcies, the federal government in the red and... we're going to start some kind of new US-wide volunteer organization? Wha? And we're going to fund everyone's pet project so we all get this warm and fuzzy feeling?
If we want to support some kind of large scale war, people have to be prepared to sacrifice more in their programs, not get more. Wars are not cheap. Wars are not just expenditures. Wars cost money, taxpayer money, my money. I support wars, but they must come at a cost, and we must be prepared to pay that cost. No amount of warm fuzzies is going to change the fiscal reality that the federal government is not terribly different than balancing a checkbook.
Bush is off in the thickets again. The entire State of the Union came off more like some kind of patriotic jingoism colored with a little bit of pre-campaign talk then as a serious speech on, well, the state of the Union. It wasn't just a bad speech, it was embarassing -- all applause and no substance. And when there was substance, it was bad substance. The war is all good and fine, but by summer the unemployment rate is supposed to hit 6.5%. No one is going to care much about killing bad guys when they can't pay their rent. No one is going to be flying, not because they're afraid, but because they simply cannot afford the tickets. That's it.
I was not terribly pleased at the apparently erosion of state's rights and the glad-handing of removing personal rights all in the name of "terror." Nor was I thrilled with some of the vague handwaving at fixing Enron. "We'll, uh, pass, uh, something so that, uh, there is more, uh, oversight over, uh, 401Ks. Oh yeah, did I mention investing your Social Security in the stock market?" Heaven save us from politicians and pretend statesmen.
What about the jobs, George?
"... and military spending..."
What about the jobs, George?
"... and we're all good patriots..."
But what about the jobs?
*thunderous applause*
Color me unimpressed. It isn't that I don't support military spending, because I do. But the words I want to focus on are fiscal responsibility. We have states running deficits, high unemployment, giant corporate bankruptcies, the federal government in the red and... we're going to start some kind of new US-wide volunteer organization? Wha? And we're going to fund everyone's pet project so we all get this warm and fuzzy feeling?
If we want to support some kind of large scale war, people have to be prepared to sacrifice more in their programs, not get more. Wars are not cheap. Wars are not just expenditures. Wars cost money, taxpayer money, my money. I support wars, but they must come at a cost, and we must be prepared to pay that cost. No amount of warm fuzzies is going to change the fiscal reality that the federal government is not terribly different than balancing a checkbook.
Bush is off in the thickets again. The entire State of the Union came off more like some kind of patriotic jingoism colored with a little bit of pre-campaign talk then as a serious speech on, well, the state of the Union. It wasn't just a bad speech, it was embarassing -- all applause and no substance. And when there was substance, it was bad substance. The war is all good and fine, but by summer the unemployment rate is supposed to hit 6.5%. No one is going to care much about killing bad guys when they can't pay their rent. No one is going to be flying, not because they're afraid, but because they simply cannot afford the tickets. That's it.
I was not terribly pleased at the apparently erosion of state's rights and the glad-handing of removing personal rights all in the name of "terror." Nor was I thrilled with some of the vague handwaving at fixing Enron. "We'll, uh, pass, uh, something so that, uh, there is more, uh, oversight over, uh, 401Ks. Oh yeah, did I mention investing your Social Security in the stock market?" Heaven save us from politicians and pretend statesmen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-01-31 02:40 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-01-31 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-01-31 03:08 pm (UTC)Peace
Re:
Date: 2002-01-31 03:11 pm (UTC)Ah, you got me there.
no subject
Date: 2002-02-01 02:28 am (UTC)Things that make you go Ummm
2) the Enron situation and the the relationship between it as regards contributions and the Bush Campaign
3) shouldn't questions be answered
4) if you were in Florida would you want to vote again.