Yes, politics is serious business...but I have to admit, I love to watch this man poke fun at my obessions every single day.
http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/tue-april-13-2010-jon-mooallem
-lil' miss liberty-
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
This Is One Reason Why You Should Care
We hear a lot of political rhetoric thrown around the news and the capital about deficits, debt, liablilities, and other economic terms that most of us know nothing about.
Basically, what it all comes down to is that we, the American people, want to have more benefits but give less of our money to the government. So, the government has to borrow money from other countries to pay for our benefits. The result of all this borrowing: 13,000,000,000 in debt. That means each person in this country is over 40,000 in debt to a variety of countries, primarily China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia.
Why does this matter? Because eventually, these countries are going to want their money back. And when they come asking for it...someones gotta pay. Its going to be us.
So what do we do now? We do what is ECONOMICALLY best for our country and NOT what is POLITICALLY best for the leaders of our nation. We get out of debt. We only get the benefits we can cover with our income. We use a PAYGO system (ring any bells Clinton lovers?). In short, we suck it up and deal with the fact that we don't have the money to have everything we want.
My inspiration for this post: Frontline - Ten Trillion and Counting. Watch it. And then do something about it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/view/
-lil' miss liberty-
Basically, what it all comes down to is that we, the American people, want to have more benefits but give less of our money to the government. So, the government has to borrow money from other countries to pay for our benefits. The result of all this borrowing: 13,000,000,000 in debt. That means each person in this country is over 40,000 in debt to a variety of countries, primarily China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia.
Why does this matter? Because eventually, these countries are going to want their money back. And when they come asking for it...someones gotta pay. Its going to be us.
So what do we do now? We do what is ECONOMICALLY best for our country and NOT what is POLITICALLY best for the leaders of our nation. We get out of debt. We only get the benefits we can cover with our income. We use a PAYGO system (ring any bells Clinton lovers?). In short, we suck it up and deal with the fact that we don't have the money to have everything we want.
My inspiration for this post: Frontline - Ten Trillion and Counting. Watch it. And then do something about it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/view/
-lil' miss liberty-
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Shot Heard Round the World
Although I know no one reads this blog (yet) I still feel like I owe it to my conscience to post my thoughts on the recent health care debate and even more recent health care bill.
First: How did an issue so personal become so widely run by government? When did we as an American people decided that our personal health was subject to government intervention? I for one know I never agreed that the government had a place in providing for my health.
Second: Where in the Constitution is reconciliation allowable or mentioned? When in history has reconciliation been allowed? What gives government the right to side step rules in order to push legislation forward?
Third: How did this happen?
The third question is the one I'm most interested in. My newest idea for a book---tracking the progress of governmental social interaction from the beginning of American society to the present day. I think it will be fascinating to link the social transitions to the political transitions.
Also, I find it interesting that 78% of Americans did not want the health care bill passed by the House on Sunday. That's a much more significant majority than 219-212 (which is 50.8% if you were interested). How is it possible that such a radical change to our governement, and by extension our society, can be decided by a majority of .8%? That doesn't seem to demonstrate the way our government works. It looks like this time representation didn't mean a thing.
-lil' miss liberty-
First: How did an issue so personal become so widely run by government? When did we as an American people decided that our personal health was subject to government intervention? I for one know I never agreed that the government had a place in providing for my health.
Second: Where in the Constitution is reconciliation allowable or mentioned? When in history has reconciliation been allowed? What gives government the right to side step rules in order to push legislation forward?
Third: How did this happen?
The third question is the one I'm most interested in. My newest idea for a book---tracking the progress of governmental social interaction from the beginning of American society to the present day. I think it will be fascinating to link the social transitions to the political transitions.
Also, I find it interesting that 78% of Americans did not want the health care bill passed by the House on Sunday. That's a much more significant majority than 219-212 (which is 50.8% if you were interested). How is it possible that such a radical change to our governement, and by extension our society, can be decided by a majority of .8%? That doesn't seem to demonstrate the way our government works. It looks like this time representation didn't mean a thing.
-lil' miss liberty-
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Laughter Is Good for the Soul.
A little laughter never hurts when it comes to politics. It tones down the divisiveness, the partisanship, the angst. Compare and contrast the two images below. Differences? Similarities? All I know is I laugh every time I look.
This is our current President. He's addressing a group of elementary school children in a classroom. I'm not sure why he needs teleprompters, giant speakers, the podium from the White House press room, a secret service agent, and a brand new suit, but he does look pretty nice (and intimidating).
And this is our former President addressing a group of elementary school children in the gymnasium. Little different approach wouldn't you say?
This is our current President. He's addressing a group of elementary school children in a classroom. I'm not sure why he needs teleprompters, giant speakers, the podium from the White House press room, a secret service agent, and a brand new suit, but he does look pretty nice (and intimidating).
And this is our former President addressing a group of elementary school children in the gymnasium. Little different approach wouldn't you say?
Interesting to see how two different men handle the same situation. Who cares more about appearance? Who cares more about relatability? Who cares more about prestige? Who cares more about connectedness? Those are not my opinions, just some questions I thought were relevant to these two pictures. I think I could do an entire research project based on these two pictures. In fact, I just might.
-lil' miss liberty-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)