I remember being home that spring friday when the government announced it would not shut-down.
Politicians were locked in a room and made to draft a bill preventing the furlough of workers and haulting of federal programs as we reached the dept cap thus exhausting the governments power to spend money.
News stations were broadcasting their arguements, "are you really going to shut-down the government over planned perenthood?!" one woman yelled in irritiation.
And I aggreed with her. I too thought the arguements were bogus, ridiculous, like a cat fight, unresolved, and just stupid. Niether side would ever understand one another.
The two differed in ideology, religion, and understanding of economics. How would a couple day session ever resolve surfance issues rooted in such deep matters? It wouldn't.
This is how I feel when I listen to debates. I see a clash, arrows going towards the other and missing because the two aren't fighting on the same grounds of reality.
Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Hunstman, and Bachman seem to be the biggest competitors in the G.O.P Primaries.
Since they are in the same parties, they are closer in views but yet again, as I was watching the debate I was wondering whether they all had the same facts
Perry, Romney, and Hunstman all claimed they were the best at job creation and that their states had the most job creation during their time in power.
What sources are they using?! I even heard something different. NPR claims that Oaklahoma had the fastest growing economy and offered the safest bussiness environment.
Sometimes I wonder whether more information, or our access to it is good. With so much media, there is this illusion of transperency when really so little of it is objective. Do all of us even learn the same things in school about how govnments, politics, and economies work?
Secondly, I am on the B.S/Jargon watch. The government thus far does very little to 'create' jobs. What they do is create bussiness incentives for companies to hire workers.
They give tax breaks, for example, to bussinesses if they hire a certain amout of workers. Then they count all of these jobs and call it job 'creation'
This is not job 'creation'. What Obama Spoke about in his Jobs Act speech is similar to this. However, he actually included job creation in which the government employs construction workers to enhance infastructure.
This is job creation.
This is what the G.O.P candidates are opposed to. What they want to do is give more tax breaks to coporations hoping that they will then hire workers so they can then call it job creation.
Reagan's Trickle down theory? I don't know if it works.
Obama's Job Creation Act is similar to that of Theodore Roosevelt's New Deal to get the country out of recession. He created programs like AAA that were meant to "Recover, Reform, and Releif".
Despite all the candidates saying how they had a plan and how they were the ones who were going to do it the best, I never really did get a clear understanding of what each candidate wanted to do.
My hope is that i can more clearly understand the differences between the parties and their so called solutions.
I want to understand on what basis they argue. What point of views they have that make each differ in the sort of solutions. This country is not united and its not just surface issues. It is so deeply rooted in our views of the world. I just don't know what they are and how every view came to be so different