I’m still stuck in a mental rut regarding the upcoming presidential debate. And the more I go over the premise in my mind, the more convinced I become that debating performance has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's abilities regarding job skills. Nor does the “gift of gab” add anything of great value to problem solving or the required talents in managing the greatest nation in the world.
So, while talking to myself, I came up with a few illustrations of where I think debating skills might come up short when other abilities are greatly needed.
Let’s suppose for example, someone’s responsible for managing the country’s budget, however fails to produce one at all, thus has no idea whatsoever of whether or not revenues will be sufficient to cover costs. Consequently, debt continues to pile up, soon reaching sixteen trillion dollars plus and likely to cause another major recession. So, in that case, would you want someone in office whose only skill is BS, or someone who’s proven to know how to manage your money?
Then, what about foreign policy and who’d do a better job in that regard? Would the country be better off with someone in office who takes the time to travel to other nations himself, such as England, Poland and Israel. Or one who watches Middle-East turmoil increase, while his representatives lie to the public, and goes out to campaign for office instead?
And then there’s the huge price the public’s paying for oil, at the moment the base of the nation’s only viable vehicle fuel. The costs of that commodity alone are breaking citizen’s budgets, increasing prices of everything that gets shipped or flown, and send trillions of hard-earned American dollars to foreign nations. So, are we better off backing someone who only wants to make those problems worse, as already proven, or another who believes we should be self-sufficient and keep what we earn for ourselves?
Similarly, we have now seen the beginnings of increasing heath care taxes, and know that it’s only going to get financially worse for all while quality of service decreases. Consequently, would it be more beneficial to retain those who’ve made the huge managerial mistakes or start over with someone who wants to revise the whole issue and rebuild it so it makes sense?
Then there’s the whole area of taxes, which are already disproportionate and grossly out of line with what’s needed to keep the economy growing. Therefore, does it make more sense to elect someone who wants lower taxes for all, via revision of the tax code, which will stimulate growth, or should we retain someone who knows nothing about economics at all, but wishes to fleece cash from successful earners simply because they have some?
As for myself, there are many more issues that can be cited, and many more comparisons to be drawn. However the information forming the basis of comparison of candidates came from actual performance, not speeches, debates or other forms of hot air.
And that’s why even if the incumbent proved to be the greatest debater who ever lived, and his opponent the worst, I not only can’t think of a single issue that can be corrected by talk, I also know it was lack of presidential skills that caused all our current problems. And even the greatest BS artist on the planet can’t help fix that a bit.
That's it for today folks.