So I was watching the presidential debate last night, and a number of thoughts occured to me. Let me preface my thoughts with the fact that I am a registered INDEPENDENT, meaning that I agree and disagree with entirely too many points on all sides to officially affiliate myself with any one political party. Personally, I think all of them are rhetoric spouting hypocritical con artists. That being said, I shall begin .....
Historically speaking, many presidents who are viewed as achieving great things, were opposed, fought against, and ridiculed during their terms as president. George Washington (Federalist), Abraham Lincoln (Republican), FDR (Democrat), George H.W. Bush (Republican), Bill Clinton (Democrat), are just a few of our past presidents that achieved great things but were opposed by various factions of Congress and other political ideologists while in office. Under the current economic landscape, I cannot imagine anyone taking office that will not have opposition of some form. There will be agreements, disagreements, arguments, self-righteous congratulations, and water cooler grumbling gossip on every single issue addressed as we go forward into this next presidential term, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office. Additionally, our economy tends to be a "trickle down effect" in itself. The true effects of changes made to policy and programs put in place aren't actually seen until those changes and programs have run their course for a couple of years at the least. If you look at it logically, FDR, with his unprecedented 3 consecutive terms, was really the only president that was able to truly see and reap the benefits of his decisions while in office. While other presidents are credited with certain economic gains or stability, a good portion of what occured while they were in power should actually be, at least in part, credited to their immediate predecessors.
One of the major points that I noticed, and that was pointed out by both candidates, is that both are striving for many of the same ultimate goals. The lowering of rates for middle income families and small businesses, avoiding adding to the deficit, improvement to healthcare options for everyone ... they both agree that these things should be achieved. The differences lie in how they each think we should go about achieving these things. Again, it should be pointed out that the issues in the current economic landscape, and the gains that have been and will be made going forward over the next 4 years, should be, in part, attributed to those who were in office before them and the policies and decisions that were made during their term(s). As far as I could tell from last night's debate, bipartisan effort is going to be extraordinarily important to whomever takes office, unless we're looking for 4 years of stalemate. Regardless of whose policies and programs are better or more effective or logical, if all sides do not quit the posturing rhetoric and bury the hatchet to work towards the common goal of improving our economy at both a national and international level, our situation is only going to go from bad to worse. Whether the person sitting in that fabled office is black or white, Mormon or Protestant, privledged childhood or poor, does not matter. What matters is that all parties rally behind whomever is there so that positive steps can be achieved instead of just talked about. If we could get all candidates to list out specifically their plans for growth in the aforementioned areas, then have a impartial group assimilate those plans into an excel spreadsheet comparison, that would be most informative and ideal, as the lack of specificity on how each side plans to achieve said goals was, and is, annoying at best.
I'm still undecided, and sticking with my Independent registry.
~ The Girl In The Little Black Dress
Historically speaking, many presidents who are viewed as achieving great things, were opposed, fought against, and ridiculed during their terms as president. George Washington (Federalist), Abraham Lincoln (Republican), FDR (Democrat), George H.W. Bush (Republican), Bill Clinton (Democrat), are just a few of our past presidents that achieved great things but were opposed by various factions of Congress and other political ideologists while in office. Under the current economic landscape, I cannot imagine anyone taking office that will not have opposition of some form. There will be agreements, disagreements, arguments, self-righteous congratulations, and water cooler grumbling gossip on every single issue addressed as we go forward into this next presidential term, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office. Additionally, our economy tends to be a "trickle down effect" in itself. The true effects of changes made to policy and programs put in place aren't actually seen until those changes and programs have run their course for a couple of years at the least. If you look at it logically, FDR, with his unprecedented 3 consecutive terms, was really the only president that was able to truly see and reap the benefits of his decisions while in office. While other presidents are credited with certain economic gains or stability, a good portion of what occured while they were in power should actually be, at least in part, credited to their immediate predecessors.
One of the major points that I noticed, and that was pointed out by both candidates, is that both are striving for many of the same ultimate goals. The lowering of rates for middle income families and small businesses, avoiding adding to the deficit, improvement to healthcare options for everyone ... they both agree that these things should be achieved. The differences lie in how they each think we should go about achieving these things. Again, it should be pointed out that the issues in the current economic landscape, and the gains that have been and will be made going forward over the next 4 years, should be, in part, attributed to those who were in office before them and the policies and decisions that were made during their term(s). As far as I could tell from last night's debate, bipartisan effort is going to be extraordinarily important to whomever takes office, unless we're looking for 4 years of stalemate. Regardless of whose policies and programs are better or more effective or logical, if all sides do not quit the posturing rhetoric and bury the hatchet to work towards the common goal of improving our economy at both a national and international level, our situation is only going to go from bad to worse. Whether the person sitting in that fabled office is black or white, Mormon or Protestant, privledged childhood or poor, does not matter. What matters is that all parties rally behind whomever is there so that positive steps can be achieved instead of just talked about. If we could get all candidates to list out specifically their plans for growth in the aforementioned areas, then have a impartial group assimilate those plans into an excel spreadsheet comparison, that would be most informative and ideal, as the lack of specificity on how each side plans to achieve said goals was, and is, annoying at best.
I'm still undecided, and sticking with my Independent registry.
~ The Girl In The Little Black Dress
No comments:
Post a Comment