State of the State of the Union

[jere7my]

I don't have a lot to say about the State of the Union address; it was, once again, Bush standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier under a "Mission Accomplished!" banner, and we shall see how that goes this time. I wasn't the only person to notice the metaphoric aspect of the grieving mother's dog tags getting entangled with the Iraqi woman's clothing, which added a nasty little coda to their extremely unplanned, yet strangely photogenic, embrace. If you missed it, I expect to see it on The Daily Show tonight.

I did think it was a little odd when Bush presented $200 billion as an enormous number for a Social Security shortfall forty years down the road. "Shouldn't be a problem," I thought. "We just won't invade Iraq that year." Strange that it's a big number when it needs to be and a trifle othertimes.

Comments

[irilyth]

One difference with the Social Security shortfall is that it would be ongoing (right?), whereas we're not going to have to pay $200B to occupy Iraq in perpetuity.

Not that I am defending El Chimpanzo Smirkado.

[jere7my.livejournal.com]

...whereas we're not going to have to pay $200B to occupy Iraq in perpetuity.

Sez you.

[irilyth]

Well, either we'll leave or the cost will go down; we really can't throw $200B down the rathole indefinitely, however much anyone wants to.

[mumbly-joe.livejournal.com]

But at the same time, it's hard to justify saying "OMG SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY BY GUTTING IT NOW!!!!!1", when the shortfalls that Medicare is going to have are in the much nearer future, and much more ominous. Even if (one of) you don't think either should exist, the prioritization of which is in crisis and which diserves the back-burner for the time being is a little odd. Unless you're a paranoid socialist like me who thinks Bush is really just trying to gut the both of them to continue to create tax shelters for the very wealthy.

[jere7my.livejournal.com]

True. (I hope.) But my point was more that Bush was using $200 billion as a rhetorically large number, and when he's referring to the war he uses it as a rhetorically small number, or doesn't use it at all. He didn't say "a total of $3 trillion over a decade" or whatever; he said "$200 billion," expecting that number, even isolated from context, to have a visceral impact on his audience. It struck me as an interesting coincidence, and a bit of dishonest manipulation of his audience, that that also happens to be the price tag for his war.

[arctangent.livejournal.com]

Part of the implication surely is that $200 bil. is a small price to pay to fight the glorious fight for freedom across the world, while it's much too high of a price to pay to maintain those parasitic old retirees.

[andele.livejournal.com]

It's only $200 billion if we do nothing. Apparently, if Bush's plan is put into effect, the shortfall in 2027 rises to $300 billion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/politics/04facts.html?pagewanted=all

Maybe we should amend the Constitution to require an arithmetic exam for all candidates or something...