Can I just point out that the financial "crisis" that Reagan inherited from Carter was - much - worse than the one we're in now?
I'm not saying that nobody's hurting, but everyone is making SUCH a big deal about all of this "economic turmoil" and how Obama has such a huge job ahead of him, etc.
I'm not even criticizing Obama. I'm just saying that it really frustrates me how much the media does have the ability to shape people's perceptions. Right now I see a mostly left-leaning media making a big deal out of a financial situation that, in the grand scheme of even this country's short history, is not as bad as others we've weathered - but since it's a Democrat going into office with the chance to fix things it's made out to be the most spectacular mess that anyone could imagine, that we're all going to be saved from when he rides in on his wings of glory.
Also, I heard some numbers that I want to check myself. But apparently during Bush's term, 9 million jobs were created. The stock market went higher than ever, and when it initially "crashed" - and the media made a big deal about the number of points lost - it wasn't a significant percentage loss, at all. I think it's entirely possible that the media could have contributed to the current situation - or at least people's perceptions, which is all that economy really is - by making that initial drop seem much worse than it was.
I hate drama queens, and I think that that's all the media is doing right now...making a lot of hype and fuss. It's annoying.
25 November 2008
05 November 2008
Election Day
I was really upset by something I heard on the radio yesterday. There was a group of DJs talking about a particular presidential candidate, how wonderful he was, etc. One of the DJ's moved from talking about him to talking about how she (the DJ) had voted in years past. One of the other DJ's started talking about how "all of that stuff is online, you know, who you vote for is public record and anyone can look it up." The first one responded with a, "what, really? who anyone voted for, you can find that?" and the other DJ insisted - not meanly, just matter of factly. Not only did she insist, but (this is what really bothered me), she was like, "here, I'll show you right now, on the computer."
It seemed like it was a really flimsy ploy to get people to support the candidate in question, as in "people will know if you don't vote for the candidate we support, so you should go support him." Nobody called in to correct what they said - or if they did, they weren't allowed on the air. Nobody really challenged the statement, aside from the first DJ saying, "Really?"
Either people are really ignorant, or really manipulative. Either way, it didn't give me the warm and fuzzies about the democratic process.
It seemed like it was a really flimsy ploy to get people to support the candidate in question, as in "people will know if you don't vote for the candidate we support, so you should go support him." Nobody called in to correct what they said - or if they did, they weren't allowed on the air. Nobody really challenged the statement, aside from the first DJ saying, "Really?"
Either people are really ignorant, or really manipulative. Either way, it didn't give me the warm and fuzzies about the democratic process.
01 November 2008
Three
Reasons why I can't bring myself to vote for Barack Obama:
1. Lying about his intent to use public financing in the general election. To me, this is huge. It makes me feel like, before he even gets into office, I can't really trust promises he makes. Could John McCain have gotten away with something like that, without raising all sorts of questions about his character and trustworthiness? More to the point, I feel like it sets a really dangerous precedent. From now on, I think that we probably won't see candidates accept public financing for a general presidential election. Even if Barack really is the squeaky-clean god-man we all hope he is, that's not to say that the next guy will be. Now that it is no longer taboo to privately finance a campaign, I think we've opened the door for a LOT of ugliness and corruption. Oh yeah and visiting Obama's website and being forced to figure out how to navigate past the "Donate Money!" greeting page was a real turn-off, too. I feel like that probably takes advantage of folks.
2. Social Security. I think that Social Security will ultimately become no longer viable (probably sooner rather than later). There will be too few people making contributions that are too small in order to benefit too many retirees. To me, vowing to keep Social Security in place, at any cost, as he has done is little more than a pledge to keep us all more or less throwing away money. People who contribute to Social Security now will likely never see returns on those contributions, or at least not returns that are proportional to the contributions. I agree that it is necessary for the government to ensure that its citizens have some kind of "safety net" and so I can see how Obama's rhetoric about preserving the system is comforting. However, I don't think that Social Security is the answer.
Better, to me, that the Federal Government privatize Social Security so that I can provide for myself in my old age - instead of relying on others, or on a system that no longer works. Meanwhile, I'd be contributing at the state level to programs that would support my fellow residents and whose effects I could observe on a daily basis.
3. Health Care. Obama's health care plan might lower everyone's cost of health care, but what is it going to do for the quality of care? Socializing the health system at the federal level seems like a bad idea just because it would, again, decrease competition among health providers and insurance companies and lower the quality of care for everyone involved. How long does it take to get a medical appointment or treatment for a serious condition in France? In Canada? Why would we be any different?
I think that there is a lot that can be done at the state level to establish low-cost clinics for low-income families - some kind of "no insurance required / small fee-for-service" place to obtain medicine and treatment. For longer term illnesses, I could see states establishing some kind of fund for those same families. I think that doing so would be more cost-effective than creating explicit health-care insurance programs for every person - AND it would take away a lot of control from insurance companies, which is something we all want. Moreover, having the states take more responsibility for providing health services for residents would again raise the bar of competition among states. States would be more compelled to grow stronger economies and implement more initiatives to attract growth and development.
I think that if we take measures to make our states more responsible, stronger, and more competitive, we will have a much stronger country, on the whole. I feel like Barack Obama wants a lot of good things for everyone - which is good - but I feel like having the Federal Government take on the sorts of responsibilities that he wants it to will untimately, unfortunately, inhibit many of the good things that we all want to see happen in the country. Not only that, they might inhibit any future potential for those opportunities on the state level - how would we come back from that, and roll back the Fedearal Government's power to give the states a fighting chance?
He's dashing, articulate, and inspiring. But, I just can't do it.
1. Lying about his intent to use public financing in the general election. To me, this is huge. It makes me feel like, before he even gets into office, I can't really trust promises he makes. Could John McCain have gotten away with something like that, without raising all sorts of questions about his character and trustworthiness? More to the point, I feel like it sets a really dangerous precedent. From now on, I think that we probably won't see candidates accept public financing for a general presidential election. Even if Barack really is the squeaky-clean god-man we all hope he is, that's not to say that the next guy will be. Now that it is no longer taboo to privately finance a campaign, I think we've opened the door for a LOT of ugliness and corruption. Oh yeah and visiting Obama's website and being forced to figure out how to navigate past the "Donate Money!" greeting page was a real turn-off, too. I feel like that probably takes advantage of folks.
2. Social Security. I think that Social Security will ultimately become no longer viable (probably sooner rather than later). There will be too few people making contributions that are too small in order to benefit too many retirees. To me, vowing to keep Social Security in place, at any cost, as he has done is little more than a pledge to keep us all more or less throwing away money. People who contribute to Social Security now will likely never see returns on those contributions, or at least not returns that are proportional to the contributions. I agree that it is necessary for the government to ensure that its citizens have some kind of "safety net" and so I can see how Obama's rhetoric about preserving the system is comforting. However, I don't think that Social Security is the answer.
Better, to me, that the Federal Government privatize Social Security so that I can provide for myself in my old age - instead of relying on others, or on a system that no longer works. Meanwhile, I'd be contributing at the state level to programs that would support my fellow residents and whose effects I could observe on a daily basis.
3. Health Care. Obama's health care plan might lower everyone's cost of health care, but what is it going to do for the quality of care? Socializing the health system at the federal level seems like a bad idea just because it would, again, decrease competition among health providers and insurance companies and lower the quality of care for everyone involved. How long does it take to get a medical appointment or treatment for a serious condition in France? In Canada? Why would we be any different?
I think that there is a lot that can be done at the state level to establish low-cost clinics for low-income families - some kind of "no insurance required / small fee-for-service" place to obtain medicine and treatment. For longer term illnesses, I could see states establishing some kind of fund for those same families. I think that doing so would be more cost-effective than creating explicit health-care insurance programs for every person - AND it would take away a lot of control from insurance companies, which is something we all want. Moreover, having the states take more responsibility for providing health services for residents would again raise the bar of competition among states. States would be more compelled to grow stronger economies and implement more initiatives to attract growth and development.
I think that if we take measures to make our states more responsible, stronger, and more competitive, we will have a much stronger country, on the whole. I feel like Barack Obama wants a lot of good things for everyone - which is good - but I feel like having the Federal Government take on the sorts of responsibilities that he wants it to will untimately, unfortunately, inhibit many of the good things that we all want to see happen in the country. Not only that, they might inhibit any future potential for those opportunities on the state level - how would we come back from that, and roll back the Fedearal Government's power to give the states a fighting chance?
He's dashing, articulate, and inspiring. But, I just can't do it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)