grrrrrrrrr and more...
Oct. 14th, 2004 12:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
macvillekellyWARNING: POLITICS ALERT. Unless you're a Bush supporter, be prepared to be annoyed... ;-)
I am SO FRUSTRATED with Bush's advisors. I only got to see the debate after about 9:45 or so, and therefore probably missed any discussion on the deficit. All I know is that Bush has just been taking the heat for the 3.some-odd trillion dollar deficit that's happened over the past four years. Do you know WHY we have a multi-trillion dollar deficit right now? It's because of Congress and their pork projects. Not because of the war, not because of the tax cuts (although they did have a slight hand in it because Congress passed tax cuts without reducing their spending). Do you know how much congressional members get paid every year? A LOT (not 100% certain but I think it's in the neighborhood of $200,000+). Do you know what their pensions are? About $180,000 tax-free and they have the same health care benefits as current Members. Do you know how much the president makes? About $450,000, I think - but there's only one of him, there's 535 people in the Senate and in Congress, and I'm sure Senators get paid more than Congressmen. BEYOND their freaking-insane salaries, they have stupid little pet projects at home that eat up billions of dollars a year in federal funding. The President doesn't have any control over that stuff. Congress holds onto the appropriations bills right up until the end of the fiscal year and the President doesn't have TIME to veto it and make them take out some of the excess spending. Do you know WHY the budget was balanced before this President came into office? Because of people like J.C. Watts and Newt Gingrich wielded serious power in Congress and didn't let all that pork-funding crap go through. "We had the budget balanced and paid off the national debt for two years before this President came into office." Yeah, Senator, why don't you and good old Tedward stop sending federal money back to your beloved little state of Mass. and see how much money we save in the next few years.
Economics is Bush's weak point, because they don't know how to defend him. And all of this information is courtesy of my father, I thought Bush was weak economically for quite some time until he set me straight tonight. :-)
The strategy of turning economical stuff towards education, and the importance of getting a good education contributing to earning potential, was good but it wasn't clearly communicated as it could have been and seemed evasive. Bush didn't hit hard enough on the fact that he supported raising minimum wage, especially after Kerry went on for two minutes on how he was going to raise it to $7.00 an hour.
You know, if Kerry wins (considering the wav-ability of the public opinion and the results of the debates), he'll have a new experience. SHOWING UP FOR WORK. Mr. "I only vote when I feel like it" who has missed HOW many of the available votes in the past 20 years? Don't he and Edwards have the most absent voting records of the entire Senate?
And did you notice the contrast between the question about the women in Bush and Kerry's lives? Bush's was all about how much he loved them and what he did for them and what they have done for him. He told the sweetest story about when he met Laura. Kerry's was just about what his wife and daughters did for him. Did anyone sense the irony when Kerry's mother, after he told her he was going to run for President, told him "integrity, integrity, integrity." Bah.
Kerry whines because we took the focus off of Osama Bin Laden. If you read the essays I posted earlier, you see the case the author made for Osama's being dead now for quite some time, and he makes excellent points. Maybe they'll come out right before the election that Bin Laden has been dead for the past six months or so and they've known it... I dunno. But at the same time, he makes a good case for why it shouldn't be public. The thing that stinks though is HOW much would it help Bush if Bin Ladin is confirmed dead???
And religion affecting policy -President Bush did a really good job defending his faith affecting his decisions without using too much Biblical language, which is a must-be-able in public life; try saying the words "the Bible says" and see if people listen to you. If you don't understand how important it is to be able to argue Christian principles without referencing the Bible, you don't understand the American government and American culture.
Ahem. Anyway. I love politics. :-D It's so dirty and mud-slinging. Pardon me if I've stepped on toes. I just really respect the President, and though we have a few things that we differ on. As far as the religious pluralism thing, he has made it clear in public who his God is. The respect/allowances he has made towards other religions have been called for by his office as a secular leader. There are (and have been) laws about ANY religion being especially promoted at ANY government-sponsored event or on government property. At the National Christmas Tree Lighting in DC, it specifically states that excessively religious music is not allowed. It's not the President's fault. It's the people, the judges, and the legislators. Wouldn't that be lovely, the Freedom from Religion Foundation suing the President of the United States because "overly religious" music was performed at the National Christmas Tree Lighting.
Posting this publicly because I darn well feel like it. I'm going to get myself in trouble someday... and if I need to re-post my essay that I posted for similarly-politically-minded friends only, I can do that too.
I promise I'm not as nasty as I seem if someone who doesn't know me well reads this. This is just something that I get really worked up over. :-)
I am SO FRUSTRATED with Bush's advisors. I only got to see the debate after about 9:45 or so, and therefore probably missed any discussion on the deficit. All I know is that Bush has just been taking the heat for the 3.some-odd trillion dollar deficit that's happened over the past four years. Do you know WHY we have a multi-trillion dollar deficit right now? It's because of Congress and their pork projects. Not because of the war, not because of the tax cuts (although they did have a slight hand in it because Congress passed tax cuts without reducing their spending). Do you know how much congressional members get paid every year? A LOT (not 100% certain but I think it's in the neighborhood of $200,000+). Do you know what their pensions are? About $180,000 tax-free and they have the same health care benefits as current Members. Do you know how much the president makes? About $450,000, I think - but there's only one of him, there's 535 people in the Senate and in Congress, and I'm sure Senators get paid more than Congressmen. BEYOND their freaking-insane salaries, they have stupid little pet projects at home that eat up billions of dollars a year in federal funding. The President doesn't have any control over that stuff. Congress holds onto the appropriations bills right up until the end of the fiscal year and the President doesn't have TIME to veto it and make them take out some of the excess spending. Do you know WHY the budget was balanced before this President came into office? Because of people like J.C. Watts and Newt Gingrich wielded serious power in Congress and didn't let all that pork-funding crap go through. "We had the budget balanced and paid off the national debt for two years before this President came into office." Yeah, Senator, why don't you and good old Tedward stop sending federal money back to your beloved little state of Mass. and see how much money we save in the next few years.
Economics is Bush's weak point, because they don't know how to defend him. And all of this information is courtesy of my father, I thought Bush was weak economically for quite some time until he set me straight tonight. :-)
The strategy of turning economical stuff towards education, and the importance of getting a good education contributing to earning potential, was good but it wasn't clearly communicated as it could have been and seemed evasive. Bush didn't hit hard enough on the fact that he supported raising minimum wage, especially after Kerry went on for two minutes on how he was going to raise it to $7.00 an hour.
You know, if Kerry wins (considering the wav-ability of the public opinion and the results of the debates), he'll have a new experience. SHOWING UP FOR WORK. Mr. "I only vote when I feel like it" who has missed HOW many of the available votes in the past 20 years? Don't he and Edwards have the most absent voting records of the entire Senate?
And did you notice the contrast between the question about the women in Bush and Kerry's lives? Bush's was all about how much he loved them and what he did for them and what they have done for him. He told the sweetest story about when he met Laura. Kerry's was just about what his wife and daughters did for him. Did anyone sense the irony when Kerry's mother, after he told her he was going to run for President, told him "integrity, integrity, integrity." Bah.
Kerry whines because we took the focus off of Osama Bin Laden. If you read the essays I posted earlier, you see the case the author made for Osama's being dead now for quite some time, and he makes excellent points. Maybe they'll come out right before the election that Bin Laden has been dead for the past six months or so and they've known it... I dunno. But at the same time, he makes a good case for why it shouldn't be public. The thing that stinks though is HOW much would it help Bush if Bin Ladin is confirmed dead???
And religion affecting policy -President Bush did a really good job defending his faith affecting his decisions without using too much Biblical language, which is a must-be-able in public life; try saying the words "the Bible says" and see if people listen to you. If you don't understand how important it is to be able to argue Christian principles without referencing the Bible, you don't understand the American government and American culture.
Ahem. Anyway. I love politics. :-D It's so dirty and mud-slinging. Pardon me if I've stepped on toes. I just really respect the President, and though we have a few things that we differ on. As far as the religious pluralism thing, he has made it clear in public who his God is. The respect/allowances he has made towards other religions have been called for by his office as a secular leader. There are (and have been) laws about ANY religion being especially promoted at ANY government-sponsored event or on government property. At the National Christmas Tree Lighting in DC, it specifically states that excessively religious music is not allowed. It's not the President's fault. It's the people, the judges, and the legislators. Wouldn't that be lovely, the Freedom from Religion Foundation suing the President of the United States because "overly religious" music was performed at the National Christmas Tree Lighting.
Posting this publicly because I darn well feel like it. I'm going to get myself in trouble someday... and if I need to re-post my essay that I posted for similarly-politically-minded friends only, I can do that too.
I promise I'm not as nasty as I seem if someone who doesn't know me well reads this. This is just something that I get really worked up over. :-)
