Chaos Digest is a user-driven, online community based near Chicago. Lately, members are interested in progressive politics, science, technology, design, art and culture, but we're wide open: share what interests you.
You'll need to sign up to post and comment.
My U.S. Congressman is Republican Mark Kirk. I consider myself an independent with democratic tendencies. I would like to believe I could vote for a republican if I felt they were the best person for the job. I would like to believe that I look at the whole picture and try not to focus on single issues.
I have seen first hand what Mark Kirk has done for the surrounding communities whether it is securing federal funds for cleaning up Waukegan's Harbor, renovating Veteran's Hospitals, or assisting with a primary care facility in Highland Park that we designed and built. He has also greatly assisted a friend of mine who is a social worker.
I can look at all of those things, and say, Yeah, here is a guy who is really working for his people. His accomplishments have affected me directly. I have even written him and told him so.
But when it comes down to it, I simply cannot make myself vote for Mark Kirk for basically one reason. His support for the Iraq War. He really has pissed me off about the subject. Before we even invaded Iraq, he was blaming the Anti-War movement for Soldiers deaths. Paraphrasing now . . . "Every day that those against the War delay our invasion means more soldier deaths as we have to fight in the heat of the summer time." I was appalled by this comment. Here he was blaming those in favor of preventing a War for soldiers dying. 5 years later, look where we are at. Would a few days back then really have mattered?
If it were up to me, we never would have gone into Iraq, 4,000 soldiers would still be alive, 70,000 soldeirs would not be wounded, 500,000,000,000 dollars (that's a lot of zeroes) would not have been spent to rebuild a foreign country, I don't know how many innocent civilian lives would not have been lost (i've heard estimates in the hundreds of thousands), millions of Iraqis would not be displaced and we would not have sparked more terrorism and anti-americanism throughout the world.
So. yeah. that is my main reason. But I guess it goes deeper. Domestic Policy. I think the Tax Cuts are a joke. I have not heard much good about No Child Left Behind. I disagree with most republican views on immigration. I am FOR universal healthcare. I do not want to privatize social security.
Anyhow. It sucks because he has done some good work. And I wish I could vote for him but I can't.
But what if I did? Would i be wrong? I hate it that the same people who work in our communities get to make decisions about Americas role in the world and establishing foreign policy.
Bah. I'm just venting. Been doing that a lot lately.
I think almost anyone with a brain (which excludes the shrub) is probably not going to do everything wrong. Kirk regularly works with the VA, and probably saved ours, too.
That said, he has to. He is a representative, so he has to get votes directly from his district every two years. This means addressing the issues that matter to the district. Significant numbers of people in the district have to benefit or he will not be re-elected.
I also have trouble with his war stance. He is also one of the proponents of privatizing social security - calling the program the derogatory "entitlement." I argued with him when I had the responsibility of investing over 100K in cash for someone to supplement their upcoming retirement. This is an amount of money that the majority of people in his district are not likely to have as cash in hand. I found really no good interest-bearing accounts that weren't chump change, likely to be overwhelmed by inflation, and would offer some security. Most really good options required an investment of more than $350K liquid or significant risk. So I asked, how did he plan that people with much less retirement money could have options that are both secure and able to prepare them for what could be 15 to 20 years of post-employment living? Were we really prepared to go back to the days when old people were often homeless and selling apples in the street to survive? Sure the program needs to be overhauled, but perhaps addressing the way it is managed is a good place to start.
I have some investment education and experience. Most people have trouble figuring out how to balance check books and not overpay their taxes.
If you take all of those letters and rearrange them, you get a "Shrub". Did you mean to do that?
I think that soc. sec. has it's problems but it is not as dire as some people make it out to be. It is a safety net. that is all. it is meant to provide "something" for retirees.
Here is another question.
Should the government be paying peoples retirement? I mean I have no problems with paying government employees good wages. I have no problem with social programs and education. But is paying their retirement too much of a burden on tax payers?? Why should I pay for their retirement?
I am required to plan for my own retirement. Why shouldn't they be responsible for their own? I mean, some of these folks retire pretty well off. Personally, I'm gonna have to work until I die.
Which is why teacher's piss me off so much. They make more money than me. They get so much time off. AND they get a retirement. shoot.
The late, great Molly Ivins of Texas coined the term "shrub" in her book about the man. She was an, er, fan (?) of him when he was just an idiot in charge of wrecking Texas.
She was the same one that said, "Whee, here we go, the Ledge is back in session! And many a village is missing its idiot. The 78th biennial disaster is upon us, and what glorious fodder to feast upon..."
Social Security is you paying for your retirement. It is your money, but it is such a paltry amount, it is worthless unless pooled with other people's to make enough interest. We all have to come up with other options, too, but best of luck when most of them are mutual funds that rip you off more than they pay you. Unless you are able to fund your own portfolios and are very good or very lucky, you are not ever going to make enough without some government security.
I have mixed feelings about paying for the retirement of other people in my taxes, but then I rather like being able to call the fire department about a transformer fire and not get a bill afterwards.
R.I.P. Molly Ivins.
I miss her column so God Damn much.
Seriously, she used to be one of the highlights of my week. She was truly special.
Anyhow. I think paying for government employees retirement is a worthy topic that deserves delving into. Unfortunately, I need to do my research on it.
What do you say to people who say "I want my social security money to invest myself"? It's their money, shouldn't they be entitled to it?
yes, they are entitled to it. but that's not what social security is meant for.
It costs us so much more to take care of the mistaken investments later. Then we have to bail people out, without the benefit of compound interest on their money. I know plenty of people in my family that would be a burden, to say the least, if the government did not require that some of their money be saved.
Agh the teacher retirement... we had to contribute ourselves, instead of paying social security. What a ripoff. After "retiring" it took us a year to get the money into our own retirement account and they refused to pay interest over that year. In the mean time they were paying current teachers 4% interest. Wow, what a future for them.
What is a republican anymore?
What defines them?
What are the party planks?
What is the difference between a republican and a conservative?
Really?
"In political science, historical rankings of United States Presidents are surveys conducted in order to construct rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults (such as corruption)."
**gasping for air after clicking on Todd's Wiki link** George W ranks NUMBER 22!!!! Really #22?!?!?!?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans are "Gallant" and "Old", (like McCain) while Democrats seem content actively defining themselves merely as windy opposition to 1 Republican administration.
Dems/Republicans contrive shiny new platforms every 4 years. Here is the Republican platform from 2004-- per the GOP website:
A Safer World and a More Hopeful America
More hopeful... sound familiar Barack?
2004 Democrat Party Platform per the Dem Party website:
Stronger at Home, Respected in the World
Please note the complete omissions of World Peace & Hopefulness (they were already taken), substituted with-- Strength & Respect? Desperate much??
Recent comments
10 hours 24 min ago
19 hours 45 min ago
1 day 8 hours ago
1 day 22 hours ago
2 days 5 hours ago
3 days 8 hours ago
3 days 20 hours ago
4 days 14 hours ago
5 days 12 hours ago
5 days 19 hours ago