My take on the President's Remarks

Friday, April 29, 2005
Presidential talk-athon

So the president concluded his remarks about his plan for the future of America. Social Security, Iraq, Bolton, and the energy crisis were discussed. Me being me I scrutinized what the president had to say about Social Security, Iraq, and the energy crisis the most.

But a short note on Bolton, The Democratic senator from New Mexico stated that though he would not vote for Bolton he does feel that Bolton should be allowed to have his office. The reason, the president is the man who selects his cabinets, the filibuster, or nuclear options are new ways to mangle the presidents plan. The problem with an unchecked cabinet is the fact that voting for a president does not include voting for his cabinet. With attention spans as low as they are the presidential campaign does not include and in-depth look at the president's cabinet. How could they? Has the president even decided who he is going to elect by that time? The problem with filibuster is that we decide the president and he decides the cabinet, and we know little or nothing about his choices. Who knows about Bolton, I certainly want a blunt man in charge of US relations to the quagmire (A democrat term admittedly) that the UN is. But is he the best man for the job? Who decides. Well the president, and there is little or no democracy or republic when we can't vote for an important post like that. Admittedly, Bolton does fit the outlines that Bush had for his country, so if you voted for Bush, you can say you expected Bolton. By the by, I approve of Bolton. (that wasn't a short note at all.)

Social Security The problem with social security is clearly a partisan problem. Whether the date that the system will become insolvent is 2041 (Bush used this number in his speech) or 2056ish (the Congressional Budget Office's estimate) it is mutually decided it will become insolvent. If it becomes insolvent then we have two things, broken promises to people who have paid into the system all these years, and a truly privatized account system. It is a problem, and to those who say its a problem Republican's have brought up I say, yeah, your right, Republican President Bill Clinton was the first to raise Social Security as an issue. By any account there is a major crisis looming without a fix. I have been very pleased that there is no true Bush plan, you idiots who oppose it, your opposing your own plan. Bush has set up general guidelines for what he thinks will work and now wants to send it to congress to get decided upon. Being open is something Bush is often criticized for not being, on now he does it and you shut him down, come on now. Even when I was little I wanted private accounts, not that I knew what that was but I always felt that if I could take care of my own money I would do better with it then the government. I think its sad that the government has to force our citizens (with payroll taxes) to not blow their money they should be saving for their future. I know that one argument is an example argument that Crawford county Texas does it and its working great, and the entire country of Chile is doing it with crazy good returns. But what they don't say is Argentina is doing it and it is terrible. An Econ TA for Roberts is from Argentina and he brought up the point which Dan (another TA) said, its because your government is corrupt. Which TA Argentina replied, it is true. Look enough blabbing, Democrats need to stop moping and fix this, its bad enough that I can single out a group of people that are moping around in the first place. I want a better social security in the future, one where my returns are better then what I would receive with the current plan. To those who doubt privizitation because of wall street fears I say, that's a good point, and Bush has said its a voluntary option, you can go straight bonds if you want.

Iraq Look, we know that Saddam had WMA's because he used them in Iran and against his own people the Kurds. You can still argue, and may be right that he didn't have them when Bush claimed that he did. But he still did have them, and when US intelligence, Russian intelligence, and British intelligence, all say they have WMA's now I think its better, in the words of Bush, "To assume that he has them, rather then assume he doesn't and be wrong." I always had a problem with the missing WMA's because that was Bush probably using fear to get us to go to war. But what I wanted to hear is what he is saying now, We wants to liberate oppressed people, stop the mass graves and concentration camps, and work for peace in the mid-east. I do not believe that Bush, as ballsy as he is, led us to war in Iraq because he had a personal grudge, or could get personal gain from oil. Some say it is a war for oil, I disagree, but still can say at least it would alleviate our Energy Crisis.

Energy Bill. Okay, for those reporters grilling the president about energy prices. What makes you think the President likes higher gas prices. We seek blame in our society, but what benefit would the president have from foreign crude oil being more expensive? The energy bill is not a quick fix, but it is sorely needed. The only way to alleviate short term pains from the gas crunch is to lower the price of oil which Bush says comes from coercing other countries to increase capacity to lower prices (I checked up with the theory of demand-pull inflation, and it would work) The plan that Bush is pushing is a long term fix, for goodness sake, who would do a long term fix, it wouldn't help his approval rating? Bush claims that it should have been done long ago, and since were having an "energy crisis" now he may be right. I don't believe we are having a crisis by the way, the reason we are freaking out is because gas hits us where we live, at the margin. To prove my point, the savings rate in the US is now below ONE FRIGGIN PERCENT.
I think we need to decrease dependancy on not only foreign oil, but also domestic oil. In fact, all oil. WE need to look for, as Bush stated more ecologically safe ways to produce energy. Bush of course will not be lauded for his push for cleaner energy, the same way he got nothing for women's right when he freed Afghanistan from the Taliban.

Overall, I think I like Bush's plan for the future, because it is refreshingly non-quick-fix oriented. Politics as usual often makes politicians want to make moves to improve the appearance, but forget to fix the problem there-in. Long term goals are what are important in moving a society forward.

I accept all comments as long as they are rational, and excuse myself from any misquotes or misspelling as I wrote this after tossing and turning in my bed another sleepless night.