Have you ever seen that episode of the Simpsons where Bart's dog goes to obedience school? Everything from the dog's perspective is "Blah, blah, blah..sit...blah, blah blah.
Well, that's how I feel about the Presidential campaign, especially the last debate.
"Blah, blah, blah...middle class tax cut...blah, blah blah."
"Blah, blah blah...he voted against funding the troops...blah, blah, blah."
"Blah, blah blah...my voting record...blah, blah blah."
Blah!!!!
Is it too much to ask the candidates for less output and more actual insight? Tell me something new. Tell me specifics. Give me something useful, because I am seriously considering writing in Homer Simpson's name. He couldn't do any worse.
About Me
- Seeking Solace
- I am a college professor who is fumbling through the chaos of academia, rheumatoid arthritis, working on my PhD and just being a 40 something woman. I used to be a lawyer, which made me a snarky little person. I have a wonderful Husband and a German Shepherd named Junior. They help keep me sane.
Paws to Consider
My Sister's Keeper
9 comments:
oh I definitely have the election "blahs" too. BLAH
I'm going to try that training technique with Ginger. blah blah blah SIT. LOL
I'm serious, go to their websites. There's lots of specifics there. Tons even. You really can't expect candidates to lay out detailed policies in the 60 seconds they have in a debate - particularly when the media has declared policy "boring."
Secondly, it's not the president's job to lay out policy details anyway. That's what Congress is for.
If they can't lay out the details why the hell should I vote for them? This is their job they are interviewing for in essence, I shouldn't have to dig through the shit to find the answers for how they stand on things. They need to be upfront and just say it. It's not that hard, everyone else has to do it in job interviews and that's what these are.
And neither of them used their 60 seconds well anyway, they went over the time, didn't effective answer questions and frankly I see no point in voting for either of them because of it. I should not have to go to their websites--which are partisan by the way. If they can’t say in their own words what they stand for what their policies are, and we need to rely on Congress (which is more politicians, more partisan behavior) to explain it then please tell me what the job of the president is, and what the purpose of the debate is. It's not like I need a step by step action plan.
And don’t bother blaming the media for this.
Rented Life: I don't think you're being fair. What details would you like that can be expressed in a short statement? They're laying out a general approach - less or more taxes and for whom, less or more regulation and for whom, their basic strategies for health care or foreign policy or economic growth. What else do you want?
Why not blame the media if they are partly at fault? Candidates give detailed policy speeches and issue position papers all the time, and they disappear without a trace (I've worked in campaigns and believe me, that's what happens). What do you expect a candidate to do?
It's not "digging through their shit." There's a tab that says "issues", with each one listed that leads you to pages and pages of details. How is that hard?
OF COURSE their websites are partisan. They wrote them! If you had an hour long personal interview with the, do you think it would be any different?
And lastly, I don't know what interviews you've had, but mine have involved laying out my general qualifications, how I would approach the job, and a few priorities. Which is pretty much what both candidates are trying to do.
I can see Rented Life's point. For example, how can Obama say that he will give a tax cut to those who earn less than 150K, when a percentage of those people do not pay any income tax?
And for McCain, if he is going to give a 5K credit for health insurance, how does that make up for the remaining $7-$10K of overall cost of health insurance? And, why is such a benefit only available for families with children? Finally, why should those of us who have health care have to pay a tax to cover the 5K credit?
That is just a little of what I am talking about. Talking points and general statements do not help with it's you who has to pay for much of what both of these guys are proposing.
Seeking Solace:
The tax credit Obama is proposing is refundable, which means that if people fall below the line at which you pay income taxes, you'll get a credit.
Of course, personally I don't think a tax cut is necessary, but if there is going to be one it should be a shift in the tax burden from middle to upper income earners - which is what the Obama plan is. Given that something like 90% of net increases in wealth have been in the top 10%, it's only fair that they should pay a greater share of taxes. We're all working hard, and only a few of us are really enjoying any substantial benefits.
As for being one of the people who will pay for it - do you make 250K a year??
Arbitrisa: No, I don't, but I don not want to be penalized for doing exactly what the American dram, capitalism and other cliches say I should do.
As far as shifting the burden, there is the assumption that those of use who make, say 100-150K are not paying their fair share. I don't think that is necessary true, Many people I know who are in that bracket are struggling and not because of excess spending. Where I live, taxes are the third highest in the country. Add that to sales tax and other expenses, like health care or child care and it can be very difficult, especially if that person has a family.
I don't know what the answer is. All I am saying is that there has to be a better way than the traditional rhetoric from both sides.
Seeking Solace:
I don't want to belabor the point, but I think it's important to be aware of the facts. The top 5% of the population made 33% of all annual income in 2005. The top 1% had as large a share of the national income in 2005 as they did in 1928. Since 2001, there has been a net income decline for the bottom 80% of the population, while the top 20% has accrued ALL of the income gains. The top 10% of the population controls roughly 70% of the net wealth of the country. It's an unassailable truth that a small proportion of the population is enjoying all of the benefits of our economy, while the rest of us have been - at best - treading water.
Post a Comment