social security, revisited
I haven't blogged on Social Security for a while, but I believe that the Republicans are now showing their true agenda in the last few weeks. I'm wondering if the senior citizens are paying attention, but maybe they've been dozing off in their retirement homes.
In other words, those in favor of privatizing Social Security is actually favoring destroying Social Security by chanting the mantra that "social security has got to go."
For months, those seeking to preserve social security said that there was no crisis. Then, they listed all the speeches that President Bush made on Social Security and said that Bush is trying to change a system that guaranteed old people would not live in poverty if they have worked all their lives in their working years into a system that promises no benefits, and even possibly ensures that we will return to the days before Social Security was implemented.
Jon Stewart's Daily Show had a hilarious segment on a chimp bathing an old person, because nurses weren't affordable.
Not only that, the AARP, that organization for old people, soon to represent millions of retiring baby boomers, is to suffer for even supporting President Bush. If they thought they were going to get their back scrubbed for supporting President Bush politically, this ads, which Talking Points Memo has suggested was being funded by Karl Rove, has paint the AARP as anti-troops and pro-gay.
Normally, I am supportive of maverick politicians. Unfortunately, it can also go the other way, hurting us in the process.
It is getting clearer that the GOP, under the leadership of Karl Rove and George W. Bush, is increasingly unrelenting and uncompromising, not that I didn't notice it before.
Meanwhile, what are the Democrats doing?! I guess nothing, since they're still licking their wounds. They certainly aren't built for such vicious fights that the Republicans are capable of, because they have been able to stay a majority party from the 1930s to 1994. They've managed to succeed, I heard, in using race-baiting, but now they can't anymore. Bush has assured us of that with Alberto Gonzales.
We will see what happens in 2006, and whether they will be able to develop a multi-pronged approach to dealing with Karl Rove's brands of attack. We should have someone of such clarifying wisdom that compared with Bush and Rove will be such a fresh breath of air. But that's hoping for too much, isn't it?
In other words, those in favor of privatizing Social Security is actually favoring destroying Social Security by chanting the mantra that "social security has got to go."
For months, those seeking to preserve social security said that there was no crisis. Then, they listed all the speeches that President Bush made on Social Security and said that Bush is trying to change a system that guaranteed old people would not live in poverty if they have worked all their lives in their working years into a system that promises no benefits, and even possibly ensures that we will return to the days before Social Security was implemented.
Jon Stewart's Daily Show had a hilarious segment on a chimp bathing an old person, because nurses weren't affordable.
Not only that, the AARP, that organization for old people, soon to represent millions of retiring baby boomers, is to suffer for even supporting President Bush. If they thought they were going to get their back scrubbed for supporting President Bush politically, this ads, which Talking Points Memo has suggested was being funded by Karl Rove, has paint the AARP as anti-troops and pro-gay.
Normally, I am supportive of maverick politicians. Unfortunately, it can also go the other way, hurting us in the process.
It is getting clearer that the GOP, under the leadership of Karl Rove and George W. Bush, is increasingly unrelenting and uncompromising, not that I didn't notice it before.
Meanwhile, what are the Democrats doing?! I guess nothing, since they're still licking their wounds. They certainly aren't built for such vicious fights that the Republicans are capable of, because they have been able to stay a majority party from the 1930s to 1994. They've managed to succeed, I heard, in using race-baiting, but now they can't anymore. Bush has assured us of that with Alberto Gonzales.
We will see what happens in 2006, and whether they will be able to develop a multi-pronged approach to dealing with Karl Rove's brands of attack. We should have someone of such clarifying wisdom that compared with Bush and Rove will be such a fresh breath of air. But that's hoping for too much, isn't it?
posted by Alan at February 24, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home