26 June, 2010

Politics

Warning: rant alert.

America is polarizing dramatically nowadays. It seems like it's the Ultra-Conservatives vs. the Uber-Liberals, and no one seems willing to be a middleman. There are very, very few independents (although if Crist wins in Florida there will be one more) and it's friction, friction, friction in Washington.

Has anyone every noticed that whenever there's a crisis, the party that was in power is kicked out, the other parts gets in, and then when everything gets worse before it gets better, people migrate to the original people that caused the mess? Like right now. The Republican President George W. Bush (we all know who he is, right? -_-) came into power, caused the financial crisis, the Democratic President Obama stepped in, people heralded his position as President and called for reform of healthcare, the financial institutions, an end to the war in the Middle East. And now that healthcare was passed, economic reform seems to be on its way to the President's desk, and Afghanistan is getting sorted out, everyone seems to be saying "I HATE THE PRESIDENT."

Please, would it kill everyone to have some continuity? The Republican-Democrat-and then I am assuming back to Republican system is getting on my nerves . . . we need to stick it out with someone for once! Just because America is frustrated and angry because their lifestyles (which were actualy getting too expansive and had too much debt) were reduced, doesn't mean "IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S FAULT." He wasn't the one who garnered up so much freakin' national debt, and if he's adding to it, it's because we're in a financial recession-almost-depression! Would people rather that we'd fallen into an even deeper crisis because we couldn't spend anything to save ourselves? I don't think so . . .

As much as people like to think they do, financial systems don't regulate themselves; unless you'd like to live with the cracs-bubble-crash-bubble mode of life that we had before. Too much government is a bad thing, but too little government is not. It only makes things worse, and I'm not an anarchist.

Another thing: Obama didn't cause the oil spill; like one congressman said "Calling it the Obama spill is imflammatory and wrong" and I agree. Regulators had been there for years, and please, there's only so much he can do all at once. And BP's vessel was a) struck by lighting b) robotic accidents happen and c) we just don't have the right technology to fix to spill. True, I do think that Obama could do some things with more speed and efficiency, but at least Feinberg is now down there and coordinating the reimbursement offices and financial whatnot. He'll manage to get things more organized.

-----The Golden Eagle

2 comments:

Liberty said...

I do agree with you in some respects. For starters- no you can't blame our current crises on Obama, because he didn't start them, nor is he likely to finish them. I do think he's going to exacerbate them as he is doing now, but that's another issue. For now, I think the crash-bubble-crash cycle you spoke of is related more to how our monetary system is handled- by a centralized bank with little to no oversight coming from Congress, etc. etc.

With all that said, I do agree that people should just be consistent once in awhile. But then again, sometimes people are too consistent- like with die-hard Republicans and Democrats. If the other side does something, it's evil. If our side does the same thing, it's sent by God to help the poor people of America. I see that a lot, and it's silly.

The Golden Eagle said...

It's true about the "if the other side does something it's evil and if we do it it's send by God to help America" point you made.