What about us?

Until just recently, I was unaware of the fact that by the time we are eligible to receive social security, there won't be any. Therefore, it is very hard to believe that the Social Security Administration has just issued an increase in Supplemental Security Income. According to Martin Crutsinger, "more than 47 million Americans receiving Social Security will get a 2.7 percent increase - an extra $25, on average." However, he did also indicate that most of the additional money will be spent on Medicare premiums. Granted, those who receive SSI will need the money to keep pace with the increasing cost of living, but what will we use when we become of age to receive social security? All of the money taken out of our paychecks is used to support the generations ahead of us. Yet, at the rate we are going, nothing will even compare to what we will need to survive. Therefore, I'm sure we can all agree that something or someone needs to be placed into action. It has been mentioned that it would be possible for social security to be set up as independent accounts with each person receiving the money deducted from his or her check. That is a great idea, but when would that be placed into effect, and who would still receive what little money is left from current social security. Those who are somewhat older will be less fortunate in that they have less time to work towards saving their social security. As for us, we have already lost part of what could have been our own. Social Security is very beneficial. However, it doesn't benefit everyone. What ever happened to equality for all? Something needs to be done in order to assure our generation that we will be taken care of. I think its great that the older generations are being taken care of, but how will we, the ones who are helping to support the older generations, survive when it comes down to our turn?

Bush v. Kerry

Although I did not watch the presidential debate between Kerry and Bush, I have heard many others’ opinions about it. After reading the article posted by Richard Reeves, I wish I would have watched, because all he talked about was how badly President Bush preformed. Reeves quoted Peter Canellos, "Bush's repetition seemed insistent rather than firm, and his body language -- sighing, clenching his teeth, rolling his eyes -- suggested a man on the defensive." Reeves mentioned that Bush seemed on the defensive as his opponent mentioned issues on the war in Iraq. Yet, doesn’t everyone usually take the offensive when running up against your opponent? Because you are up against one another, you often feel offended when they make references to the decisions you have made. After all, an opponent is also referred to an “antagonist or competitor.” Therefore, it is human nature to get angry. I agree that Bush should keep his cool a little better. However, I can see why President Bush would be on the defensive. I have heard many people discuss how poorly Bush does on debates, but that doesn’t mean that he is a bad leader. Within his article, Reeves also criticized Bush by saying “The only people we know the president listens to are members of his small court, led by Vice President Cheney, who has been pushing the preposterous for the past three years.” He claims that Bush only listens to his cabinet members and that he is like the boy in a bubble who is protected by them from all of the harm and voices outside. Yet, the cabinet is a committee of senior government advisors. Therefore, they are the ones who “advise” him. Why wouldn’t he listen to them? President Bush is doing the best he can in office. He made a decision to go to war, and he is dealing with the consequences of everyone’s scrutiny, which is why he probably took the defensive on this issue during the debate. Yet, not everyone is born to do well in debates. Kerry may have done a better job on the debate than Bush, but I don’t think that he has the right leadership skills to be president. Therefore, Bush remains the winner in my book!