For the life of me I can't figure out why it takes more than a year to elect a new president or relect the present one if that is the case.
In the United States, our November, 2012 election, started many months ago with more than half a dozen Republican candidates vying to replace Barack Obama, who, so far, is running unopposed. Millions of dollars have already been spent and millions more will be spent before all is said and done. How sad that seems to me when we have people who don't even know where their next meal is coming from in this country, where they will sleep tonight, or if they will ever find another job again.
Perhaps we should sit all these candidates down, force them to calculate how many meals the dollars they have already spent in this campaign could have provided; how many shelters could have been constructed for the homeless; and how many jobs could have been created for those out of work.Then we can collectively stand in a circle around them and shout , "Shame on you! Have you all lost your minds?"
Maybe it's time we considered changing our method of choosing a president. How about having all the members of congress put their names in a hat and draw one out every 4 years? That wouldn't be any worse than what has been happening for the last several presidential elections.
Or maybe the governors of every state could meet together some weekend and choose a president. That way only 50 people would be involved, and since they were elected to the highest office in each of their individual states, they should be representative of the people of their state, and therefore qualified to choose a president. In fact, they might even choose the president from one of the 50 governors present at the meeting.
Just think of the money saved. Think of the hateful retoric avoided. Think of the time not wasted in comparison to the drawn out contests of today.
I love the idea. How about you?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday
Sunday
Please Don't Put Words Into My Mouth
At least a dozen times this past week, I have read articles stating that all the Republicans want is to "get that black man out of the White House."
Really? I haven't once heard a Republican, or anyone else indicate any such thing. Since I am a Republican and spend a lot of time with other Republicans, you would think I would have heard about such a plot at least once or twice if it were such an all-consuming desire among Republicans.
The truth is that I, and most other Republicans, do not think of President Obama as black. After all, wasn't his mother white, which would make him as much a white man as a black man, wouldn't it?
Republicans, as well as members of other parties have far more important and obvious reasons to want a replacement in the White House than the color of a candidate's skin after the next election.
It is commonly believed that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it, whether or not it is true. I see this constantly repeated phrase--repeated over and over by democrats--is nothing more than an attempt to paint Republicans as racists.
Is it succeeding? Only time will tell. Let's hope that thinking Americans respect themselves and our political system too much to fall for a lie, no matter how many times it is repeated.
Really? I haven't once heard a Republican, or anyone else indicate any such thing. Since I am a Republican and spend a lot of time with other Republicans, you would think I would have heard about such a plot at least once or twice if it were such an all-consuming desire among Republicans.
The truth is that I, and most other Republicans, do not think of President Obama as black. After all, wasn't his mother white, which would make him as much a white man as a black man, wouldn't it?
Republicans, as well as members of other parties have far more important and obvious reasons to want a replacement in the White House than the color of a candidate's skin after the next election.
It is commonly believed that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it, whether or not it is true. I see this constantly repeated phrase--repeated over and over by democrats--is nothing more than an attempt to paint Republicans as racists.
Is it succeeding? Only time will tell. Let's hope that thinking Americans respect themselves and our political system too much to fall for a lie, no matter how many times it is repeated.
Monday
Will March 21, 2010 Go Down As Another Day of Infamy?
Yesterday was not the day of victory Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues seem to think it was. However the health care bill turns out, March 21, 2010 will be remembered as the day that the U. S. House of Representatives rode roughshod over the clearly stated desires of the American people, claiming to know better what was good for them than those people most affected by the vote could possibly know.
I wonder what price these elected officials will pay for such arrogance?
I am among those who feel that this bill is the wrong bill. Do I think that there needs to be health care reform? Yes, I do, but not at the expense of seeing faith in our elected officials destroyed, the disgusting arm-twisting going on in backroom deals, and the President of the United States lowering himself to the position of stalking the halls of Congress to threaten and cajole any holdouts who might not be leaning toward his side of the bill. I was taught that there were three distinct branches of government for a reason.
A bill, I might add, that is over 2000 pages long; a bill that most members of congress have admitted they have not even read; and a bill that has been filled with earmarks promising perks to some in order to bring them around to voting for it.
Over 2000 pages to fix health care in America? I think a short list of suggestions would have done the trick. How about something similar to this for starters?
1. Fund a catastrophic policy for those whose medical expenses go beyond a certain amount each year.
2. Make it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate due to pre-existing conditions.
3. Provide free clinics for the unemployed or disabled.
3. Cap the amounts allowed to be recovered in malpractice suits.
If you favor the new bill that was approved yesterday, have you actually looked at the cost to future generations? Check out this video to hear and see the opinion of one of those who will be affected. ONE TEEN'S OPINION
I wonder what price these elected officials will pay for such arrogance?
I am among those who feel that this bill is the wrong bill. Do I think that there needs to be health care reform? Yes, I do, but not at the expense of seeing faith in our elected officials destroyed, the disgusting arm-twisting going on in backroom deals, and the President of the United States lowering himself to the position of stalking the halls of Congress to threaten and cajole any holdouts who might not be leaning toward his side of the bill. I was taught that there were three distinct branches of government for a reason.
A bill, I might add, that is over 2000 pages long; a bill that most members of congress have admitted they have not even read; and a bill that has been filled with earmarks promising perks to some in order to bring them around to voting for it.
Over 2000 pages to fix health care in America? I think a short list of suggestions would have done the trick. How about something similar to this for starters?
1. Fund a catastrophic policy for those whose medical expenses go beyond a certain amount each year.
2. Make it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate due to pre-existing conditions.
3. Provide free clinics for the unemployed or disabled.
3. Cap the amounts allowed to be recovered in malpractice suits.
If you favor the new bill that was approved yesterday, have you actually looked at the cost to future generations? Check out this video to hear and see the opinion of one of those who will be affected. ONE TEEN'S OPINION
Thursday
Are We Being Bribed To Bail Out Wall Street?
The government calls it sweetening the deal--I call it bribery!
A few years ago, a large section of the State of Oregon depended on the logging industry, not only for daily wages, but for taxes to support schools, law enforcement, etc.
When the spotted owl, an endangered specie, was discovered to inhabit Oregon forests, logging slowed to a crawl. Large areas of timberland were suddenly off-limits to loggers, and taxes in many areas dried up.
In return for not logging in the spotted owl areas, the federal government granted the state a specific amount of money to replace the tax money that had been eliminated.
Over the years, the federal payment was slowly phased out, and this year, the area where I live was told that there would be no more timber money coming our way.
Although there was the usual complaining that accompanies a withdrawal of federal monies, the state seemed to be adjusting fairly well. That is, until the recent Wall Street bail-out mess in Washington.
After the bail-out plan was rejected, due largely to an outcry from the public, the government quickly got busy figuring out how to make the plan more appealing to that public.
Oregon has been told over and over again that they will receive NO MORE MONEY to replace lost timber money. Now, suddenly, the government has added that money back into the bail-out bill that will be voted on by the house of representatives tonight.
To me, this is out and out bribery; if our representives change their vote and bail out Wall Street, our state will receive the timber money that had previously been denied.
It does make one wonder how many other bribes are being written into the revised bill to change the minds of those in states other than Oregon. And, just where is all this money to sweeten the deal coming from, when a month ago, we were told there was absolutely no more money available?
Something to think about, isn't it?
A few years ago, a large section of the State of Oregon depended on the logging industry, not only for daily wages, but for taxes to support schools, law enforcement, etc.
When the spotted owl, an endangered specie, was discovered to inhabit Oregon forests, logging slowed to a crawl. Large areas of timberland were suddenly off-limits to loggers, and taxes in many areas dried up.
In return for not logging in the spotted owl areas, the federal government granted the state a specific amount of money to replace the tax money that had been eliminated.
Over the years, the federal payment was slowly phased out, and this year, the area where I live was told that there would be no more timber money coming our way.
Although there was the usual complaining that accompanies a withdrawal of federal monies, the state seemed to be adjusting fairly well. That is, until the recent Wall Street bail-out mess in Washington.
After the bail-out plan was rejected, due largely to an outcry from the public, the government quickly got busy figuring out how to make the plan more appealing to that public.
Oregon has been told over and over again that they will receive NO MORE MONEY to replace lost timber money. Now, suddenly, the government has added that money back into the bail-out bill that will be voted on by the house of representatives tonight.
To me, this is out and out bribery; if our representives change their vote and bail out Wall Street, our state will receive the timber money that had previously been denied.
It does make one wonder how many other bribes are being written into the revised bill to change the minds of those in states other than Oregon. And, just where is all this money to sweeten the deal coming from, when a month ago, we were told there was absolutely no more money available?
Something to think about, isn't it?
Wednesday
Obama Seems To Promise The Moon, But Can He Deliver?
This election for an American president is absolutely the worst I have ever seen. Every candidate is full of lies, deceit, and backbiting. They check daily to see which way the wind is blowing before daring to say anything--and all three of our major candidates are guilty.
Last night I was listening to a re-broadcast of Senator Obama's speech in Portland, Oregon on Saturday. 75,000 eager, cheering people listened to him promise a $1000 a year tax reduction to everyone, at least a $2500 reduction in health care costs for anyone who already has health care insurance, and complete government- paid health care insurance for those who do not. He said millions of "eco-friendly" green jobs, would be created--especially in Oregon. He promised to lower drug costs, to use wood chips to make biodiesel fuel, to immediately end the war in Iraq, and to fix our education system. And on, and on, and on.
Not once in his speech did he indicate where all the money to fulfill these promises would be coming from.
Eugene, Oregon, the city that adjoins the city I live in has spent the past two years arguing over where they can find money to fill the potholes on their streets, yet their citizens were in the eager crowd applauding Senator Obama as he promised them everything but the moon.
Senators Clinton and McCain make similar vows in their speeches; President Bush did the same when he was running for office. So did almost every politician who has ever run for President or for any other public office. Were their promises fulfilled? Not usually, so why do people keep on believing that the latest politician on the scene will do any better?
I have a great idea. Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on endless election campaigns every 4 years, why don't we just have a small committee hire an acting president? If he or she doesn't perform well, give them a warning and, if they don't shape up in a month or two, fire them and find a replacement who CAN do the job.
Last night I was listening to a re-broadcast of Senator Obama's speech in Portland, Oregon on Saturday. 75,000 eager, cheering people listened to him promise a $1000 a year tax reduction to everyone, at least a $2500 reduction in health care costs for anyone who already has health care insurance, and complete government- paid health care insurance for those who do not. He said millions of "eco-friendly" green jobs, would be created--especially in Oregon. He promised to lower drug costs, to use wood chips to make biodiesel fuel, to immediately end the war in Iraq, and to fix our education system. And on, and on, and on.
Not once in his speech did he indicate where all the money to fulfill these promises would be coming from.
Eugene, Oregon, the city that adjoins the city I live in has spent the past two years arguing over where they can find money to fill the potholes on their streets, yet their citizens were in the eager crowd applauding Senator Obama as he promised them everything but the moon.
Senators Clinton and McCain make similar vows in their speeches; President Bush did the same when he was running for office. So did almost every politician who has ever run for President or for any other public office. Were their promises fulfilled? Not usually, so why do people keep on believing that the latest politician on the scene will do any better?
I have a great idea. Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on endless election campaigns every 4 years, why don't we just have a small committee hire an acting president? If he or she doesn't perform well, give them a warning and, if they don't shape up in a month or two, fire them and find a replacement who CAN do the job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
