Skip to comments.No quarrel with these Bush priorities
Posted on 11/07/2004 2:35:24 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
It is almost funny to hear the Democrats, until recently lashing out at George W. Bush and all he represents, suddenly experiencing a change of heart and, having lost the presidential election, now talking about building bridges and forging alliances, as if, had they gained power, they immediately would have turned to the Republicans for input on what they should do over the next four years.
The fact is, whether you love him or hate him, Bush has been re-elected president of the United States, and he has some clear ideas of what he should do with his time in office. While this newspaper endorsed his opponent, we are not unsympathetic to many of the goals that the current administration has made top priorities for its second term.
This nation's Social Security system is an express train headed over a cliff, and the president is correct in making Social Security reform a No. 1 priority. Exactly how it will be fixed is still open to question, but there is no doubt that some combination of privatization and readjusting benefits will be necessary to keep the entire system from crashing down around us. Whatever solution is adopted will be expensive, in terms of transition costs for example, but there is no choice.
Next comes taxes. One thing that all Americans can agree on is that our tax system is too complex and has too many loopholes that allow the richest members of our society to escape their responsibilities. Bush has said he would like to simplify our tax system, and no American who has agonized over arcane tax codes could fail to support him. Again, we will have to wait to hear his specific plan, but we're open to all ideas for a simpler, fair tax system.
When it comes to medical malpractice, almost every American not currently a practicing attorney will recognize the need for change. With skyrocketing insurance rates sending doctors in fields such as ob-gyn leaving their practices, something has to be done if Americans ever expect to continue with the access to health care they have come to expect. Bush has long said he will pare down the worst malpractice excesses, and now he has the opportunity to do so.
That these and other changes might be difficult for the president's opponents to swallow goes without saying, though we imagine they'd find comfort in the rumored pending departure -- as we suggested a few days ago -- of Attorney General John Ashcroft.
After the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress limited a president to two terms. That is in a sense a gift -- a president in his second term has no need to curry to popular favor, no need to worry about being re-elected, but instead can govern as he sees fit for the best of the nation. Bush finds himself in such an enviable position, and we are hopeful his efforts to improve our tax code, salvage our Social Security system and make our government in general more efficient, will go far to help forge the stronger, greater nation we all seek.
Long live free speech
Theo van Gogh mocked Christian values for years, but nobody ever killed him. The controversial filmmaker and columnist was famous for his outrageous and offensive opinions, but he fit in with the rough-and-tumble, avant garde Dutch society.
Not so with a group of Islamic fundamentalists living in the Netherlands, one of whom gunned down van Gogh, a distant relative of the painter, as he rode his bicycle, in retribution for his short film "Submission," where passages of the Quran that van Gogh saw as repressive to women were seen written on female bodies.
The murder gave van Gogh, 47, worldwide notoriety that had eluded him in life. And it raised an issue that increasingly will be a problem in Europe, and eventually this country, too.
Western society is based on toleration of differences. We do not kill those who disagree with us, or even those who ridicule us, but recognize the freedoms that protect others protect us as well.
Certain elements of Islam have a difficult time dealing with this lesson. So long as they stay in their totalitarian homelands, they don't have to deal with it. But if they are going to come here to take advantage of our unique opportunities, they have to temper their extremism and respect our basic values.
Democrats - obsequious in defeat, insufferable in victory.
No sense of proportion whatsoever.
"We do not kill those who disagree with us, or even those who ridicule us, but recognize the freedoms that protect others protect us as well."
It is the difference between savages and those who are civilized.
They "get it" -- Bush won big
and the democrats are now wanting
Bush to mellow. HA!
Bi-partisanship begins with the losing side
reaching a consensus WITH our side. They must
give the most.
They did come here, and they did take advantage of our unique opportunities, and we lost the World Trade Center as a result.
A two-fer of good sense, what's going on over there? I can't believe they are saying such glowing words about SocSec reform and Malpractice reform and yet they endorsed Kerry, whose plan for those things was NO and NO.
They certainly toned down the details of Van Gogh's death. He wasn't just shot in the street, he was shot, stabbed repeatedly, had his throat cut, and then a second knife was used to pin that threatening letter to his dying body. It's really not quite the same thing, but the point they make is well taken, although I'm nearly 100% sure it will fall on deaf ears with the radicals, although I venture the paper knows this. Maybe it is a hint to ordinary Muslims who want to stay in the West that they need to know even liberals "tolerence" for "diversity" and "multiculturalism" will only go so far.
Or we're going to have to kill them.
For some reason the paper left that part out...
That bears repeating.
Ever wonder why Social Security is in such bad shape? How many times has the government taken money out of Social Security to pay for other programs and then never put it back into the fund? Are we going to continue to throw good money in after bad or suck it up and pay for the mistakes of the past and reform Social Security in a way which will give each individual a little control over their retirement stipend. I work for the government and they have a retirement fund that we contribute to. You have a say in how the money is invested so when the market is depressed you can put the money into funds that will do better during those times and when the market is bullish you can put money into high risk-high yield funds. I believe if you privatize Social Security, in the long run you'll have a better system with more control in the individual's hands. You just have to be willing to bite the bullet and pay the cost of making the transition.
Rabid dogs are not tolerated anywhere, and when cornered, are killed, as no form of rehabilitation is possible.
Whatever happened to Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin who rushed up close and killed Bobby Kennedy in 1968, when it looked like Kennedy was well on the way to being the Democrat nominee that year?(http://crimemagazine.com/04/bobbykennedy,0527.htm)
There really never was a "fund". As best I understand it the government's funding of social security is as follows; I decide to set up a retirement fund, every payday I take a portion of my pay and put it in my top desk drawer, then I write out an iou for that amount and put it in the top desk drawer, remove the money and put it back into my wallet and spend it on whatever. I then repeat this every payday and go merrily on my way secure in the knowledge that I owe myself enough money to retire on, when I reach retirement age I pull out my iou pile and present them to myself, whereupon I realize that I must continue working until I am dead to earn money to pay the money I owe to myself.
Bush has slowly been opening the eyes of Americans who've been walking around with their hands out.
He's telling them to LOOK! Government does not do things well, they do not spend your money properly.
He's telling people, "Keep your money!" He wants them to see they are better suited to make those choices.
With No Child Left Behind, Bush has parents asking public schools what in the world have we been paying for?
He's checking off the list and showing the voters the truth.
These pirates now want us to "reach out" a helping hand to work in unison....trust the cobra before you trust a democrat.
They don't have enough "capital" to defeat Bush's agenda.
Maybe we can make them a loan. They vote for President Bush's policies and they get to take some of his "capital" to the voters next election.
I don't know about this paper in particular but this certainly wasn't the tone of the Democrats in general before the election.
Then you were a fascist pig if you thought Social Security and the tax codes needed to be reformed. Gee, you mean Team Bush has real human beings that might, just might have ideas that would work? Quite a difference.
I did notice that they slipped in a bit about the wealthy "escaping their responsibility", as if 5% of the people paying 50% of the taxes is not enough.
I've got an idea! Over 50 million people voted for Kerry. If each of them would just send in an extra 10% beyond what is required by law the government would have LOTS of money to spend.
I sure haven't heard this kind of rhetoric coming from the left, has anyone else?
They just keep calling us (the winners) names and telling us we have to reach out to them (the losers).
That works for me.
They were too busy campaigning for Kerry and bashing Bush. There was no time for honest analysis and reporting.