Obama, Bush. Fool Me ONCE...Fool me TWICE...!
by Garland Robinette
,
posted Jan 11 2012 11:59AM
|
Yep, I admit it, I voted for President Obama. I still think he seems like a decent and intelligent man, but when I was voting I was voting for change. Now, into the fourth year of his term, this is NOT the change I envisioned.
(Click the links below from my research to read more about the “change” since 2008:)
* Lowest U.S. consumer confidence in 30 years.
* America’s credit rating downgraded for the first time in American history.
*Chronic unemployment worse than the great depression.
*Federal spending, the budget deficit and our national debt are all at the highest level as a percentage of GDP since WWII.
*46 million now living in poverty. The most on record since the census began tracking poverty in 1959.
*Highest black unemployment in 28 years.
*Worst jobs record of any modern president.
*Worst housing crisis since the great depression.
*U.S. Misery Index at 28-year high.
*Under President Obama U.S. poverty rate swells to 1 in 6.
*Record number of Americans now rely on food stamps.
*Rate of economic growth under President Obama only slightly higher than the 1930’s, the decade of the Great Depression.
And, I could go on and on and on...
Yep, I admit it, I voted for President Bush.
I still think he seems like a decent man, but when I voted, I was voting for change. This is NOT the change I envisioned:
*President Bush promised to reduce the number of uninsured Americans before he took office. Two years into his presidency the number increase by nearly 4 million.
*Promised to ensure that the federal government will comply with all laws. For 3 years the Department of Defense requested that Congress exempt it from environmental laws.
*Promised to give states $1 billion over 5 years to help keep (or return) children in their homes whenever safely possible. Instead when in office President Bush told states to use currently earmarked money for foster care and required states to accept a spending cap of the amount of foster care states could provide.
*Promised energy assistance for low income families. The promise was $155 million. He later cut the energy program by $300 million, despite higher unemployment and a colder winter.
*Promised to restore confidence in the judicial nomination process. Fought a nomination to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and charged Democrats with an anti-Catholic bias.”
*Promised he would attack pork-barrel spending. As of late 2004, he had not vetoed a single bill, despite enormous amount of pork.
*Promised that, “by far the vast majority of my tax cuts will go to the bottom end of the spectrum”. The top 20% of earners received 69.8% of President Bush’s tax cuts. Those in the bottom quintile of earners received an average tax cut of $27.
*Promised to pay down the debt to a “historically low level.” In 2003 the national debt stood at over $7 trillion, a record high. In 2004, $445 billion was added. Two wars were added without paying for them.
*Promised to “lock away a Social Security surplus.” In 2002 alone, the first fiscal year of his presidency Mr. Bush spent $159 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus
And, I could go on and on and on...
So, here are my first questions: How can we vote for either party? Who is it you believe and trust and more importantly...why? Who is it that has delivered on their promise of change? What is it about the (above) history that assures you of a different future? How can you believe in two clubs, who after the past 10 plus years have proven not to be able to deliver on major promises?
Here’s my second rant. Why is a vote for a third party candidate a wasted vote? I didn’t know it was a horse race. Should we vote on just assured winners? How do you do that? If you vote on a “place” horse, did you waste your vote? Is a vote not just a declaration of beliefs?
And, third...in the “red south” there is an often repeated determination not to compromise. No compromise means continued gridlock. Now follow me closely here…if red states want smaller government... What better way to keep government from growing than gridlock. If you votes for a third party at least the message goes out to the two major parties that we are not stupid, nor can we be counted upon to act as sheep. We see there is little or no difference in the two clubs, other than rhetoric and “dead-eye” dogma. So, a third-party vote could simply be a statement of protest and at the same time assures that the status quo remains. Status quo assures gridlock and therefore a less active and growing government, which is what we say we want.
Yep, I admit I voted for them both, Obama & Bush. But, fool me once, fool me twice…no-no-no not a third time!
Tags : Topics : PoliticsSocial : PoliticsPeople : Bush, Obama
|
