And he’s not quite back in the game
Posted on | January 20, 2004 |
As I know you all come here for my articulate, exacting, and poignant political rants, I’ve compiled a short reaction to the State of the Union address.
Excerpts courtesy of FoxNews.com
“Inside the United States, where the war began, we must continue to give homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets.”
Crap. I suppose you had to say this Mr. Bush.
“We are providing more funding for our schools, a 36 percent increase since 2001.”
That’s nice. Because ‘the more is better’ idea is working so well.
“My administration is promoting free and fair trade, to open up new markets for America’s entrepreneurs, and manufacturers, and farmers, and to create jobs for America’s workers.”
Okay. I’m listening. But did you have to say ‘fair’? How about just free?
“Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.”
Woohoo!! Wait did I just clap out loud in my apartment by myself. So, what you’re saying Mr. Bush, is that I could save for my own retirement and not funnel money into a system that will never actually help me? I gotta tell ya, I am lovin’ this idea.
“On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs.”
I am loving that you used the word ‘private’ in this sentence. But why the hell did you have to follow that sentence with this one: “To make insurance more affordable, Congress must act to address rapidly rising health care costs.” What does that mean? I hope you didn’t mean that the federal government should stick its fat fingers into this market. I’m sure you wouldn’t do that Mr. Bush.
“A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription.”
That was my favoritist line. Ever. That nearly put you back on my presidential candidate shortlist.
“That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.”
And how about the federal government not defining marriage for the states.
“Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example.”
Geez. Was there ever a more superfluous piece of rhetoric? This paragraph shouldn’t have made the final cut.
Summary: The State of the Union address amounted to a lot of posturing for applause. Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy could not have looked more bored if they tried. And, did anyone else notice that it seemed like George Dubya wanted to break out in laughter at any time?
And now back to your regularly scheduled six hour special on the importance of the seemingly non-consequential-no-one-actually-votes-and-no-one-cares Iowa caucus.
Comments
10 Responses to “And he’s not quite back in the game”
January 21st, 2004 @ 7:57 am
“A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription”
So should say France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Danmark and others alike, whose health care systems are “very, very, bad”.
Regards.
January 21st, 2004 @ 8:38 am
Are you being sarcastic?
January 21st, 2004 @ 9:44 am
A bit.
I donīt understand why you are so against universal health care.
“Government” is a very broad concept. It might mean a dictatorship, a democracy, a municipality, a State or the Federal Government.
If you have people effectively participating in the making and managing of public policies, why not have a health care system which is based on taxes?
Why canīt government be efficient?
Is it a dogma?
January 21st, 2004 @ 11:35 am
Government is NEVER efficient. Ever. In the history of history. Why doesn’t communism and other planned economies work? Because the government cannot respond fast enough, and definitely not as fast as a consumer-driven free market.
There is nothing you could ever say to make me believe that government can ever do anything better or more efficiently than the private sector.
January 21st, 2004 @ 1:29 pm
Infrastructure?
January 21st, 2004 @ 5:20 pm
On the matter of government intervention, I suggest you read something about the Pacific Railway Act (1862), just as an example.
Regards.
January 22nd, 2004 @ 1:53 am
You all don’t know me, I came here from phark.net, but I thought I’d add my two cents anyway.
I liked your recap on the state of the union! Nice job. I also completely agree with you on how bad it would be for the government to get involved in healthcare as far as a nationalized healthcare program’s concerned. I know for a fact Bush isn’t planning to do that.
As for Someone, have you ever been to any of those countries with socialized medicine? It’s insane trying to get anything done. I’ve known so many people in England, Canada, and Australia who have ended up in situations where without their horrendously expensive private health insurance, they would have died if they’d been left to the care of the government healthcare system. It’s nuts, doesn’t work, and that’s why thousands of people from around the world flock to the United States when they have serious health problems. Having spent a good portion of my teenage life at Johns Hopkins, I can testify that our medical care is the absolute best in the world.
January 22nd, 2004 @ 5:59 am
Sorry,
But what happens to, letīs say, a child with leukemia(?), born from a family that just doesnīt have enough money to pay a medical plan?
January 22nd, 2004 @ 8:33 am
Actually, we have wonderful private organizations like the Shriners that get involved in situations like that. I also believe that St. Jude’s hospital, which is a private not-for-profit, serves children both paying and non-paying.
January 22nd, 2004 @ 12:26 pm
Someone - Every child under a certain age is already covered with government provided medical care. I think the cut-off age is 16, but I’m not absolutely certain. That’s something hardly anyone ever mentions, but it’s the truth. I believe the program’s called “Access”, but I’d have to look it up again. At Johns Hopkins, I met several young children and teenagers with leukemia who had no medical insurance, and they got the best care in the world there. Other organizations, like the Shriners, do subsidize that medical care for children.