ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

8 Billion for Nothing

Updated on November 15, 2012

No Change

Just Hard Cash
Just Hard Cash | Source

The United States

Once again we have seen the United States spend $8 billion for nothing.

Over 2 years of campaigning the 2 Presidential candidates spent $8 billion and for what?

No change.

Now I am not complaining that Obama won, nor am I complaining that Romney lost. All I am saying is that after all that money; there is no change in the Presidency. This is not unusual because more often than not, the incumbent President does win and that is the point.

Some people say that 4 years is too short a time for a Presidency and that I do perhaps agree with. After all, it would normally take up to a year to make changes to the old Presidents mandates, that just leaves 1 year of actually doing what he wants before he once again has to campaign for re-election. Surely this can not truly be enough time for ANYONE to make a real difference.


No, I am not proposing a dictatorship but perhaps a review of the system may not be wrong.

OK, I can understand that some may say “if there is a really bad President, then more than 4 years could really hurt the country”. Once again I agree.

I would propose that at the 4 year point, a vote is held. Not with 2 candidates running but just a vote on whether the current President should stay in office.

If the popular vote is in favor of the President, then he remains in office for 4 more years, after which point he must stand down.

If the popular vote is against the president staying in office, then the next year an election is held but the incumbent President cannot run.


History shows that in the majority of cases the President wins an election which also means that billions of dollars are spent needlessly as no change occurs.

I believe that it is also true that 4 years is possibly too short a time for any President to really display his true worth. This view is perhaps backed up by the fact that usually a President wins 2 terms.

It could be said that this system would stack the cards in favor of the President winning a second term but would it really?

It would appear that the incumbent President already has an advantage, perhaps “the devil you know”, still; facts would indicate that, so no change.

It could be said that the opposition is at a disadvantage but why?

Once again history shows that running against a President standing for a second term, gives you a disadvantage. This way you never would have to run against a standing President, therefore creating a level playing field.

Yes, I acknowledge that even a vote on whether a President should remain in position would still create expenditure but surely not as much as a fully fledged campaign with numerous candidates.

In some instances it may even suit the opposition party, allowing them ample time to select a suitable candidate, especially knowing that they would not have to run against a standing President.

This could, in some ways, take out the personalities out of the race and make it more of a choice between the different party doctrines.

Remembering: that 4 years is perhaps too short a time, for a President to do any really meaningful good, especially if his predecessor was from an opposing party.

In summary, $8 billion is a lot of money to spend in order to receive nothing that you did not already have, especially in these times of financial hardship.

It is difficult to change a national course of business and stabilize it in just 2 years before you have to start campaigning again.

In reality, the United States are only getting 1 year, of real Presidency, every 4 years. 1 year is spent cleaning up and 2 are spent campaigning.

The United States are the self proclaimed leader of the free world, yet they too often display a lack of real leadership. The world sees them as a country that is always campaigning, which includes throwing mud at the Presidents leadership and disputes on their courses of action.

This in turn, appears as an unsettled leadership. One that could be subject to change imminently, which again shows a lack of stability.

These factors do not just affect the visual appearance of the US but may also affect the credibility that potential investors are looking for and that would also affect the US economy.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      This two-party system is just a soap opera with the White House as a back drop.

      The Federal Reserve Bank makes the money and AIPAC buys the votes for Israel so US politics can take a bath - domestically and internationally - time and again ...

      The official media just confuses the facts to keep folks from being able to grasp reality and do anything about it!

    • rafken profile image

      rafken 5 years ago from The worlds my oyster

      dalton71482 - Yes I agree that the money may come from donations from people who can afford it but where does the money go?

      It goes to the owners of the media houses. These elitists already have enough money in their offshore accounts, why is America insisting to bulk up their accounts? The reason is because the American people do what the American media tell them to. These elitists don't care who wins the election: they win either way and that is why they not only support but also encourage elections at every opportunity. You didn't actually think that it really had any thing to do with democracy did you?

    • somethgblue profile image

      somethgblue 5 years ago from Shelbyville, Tennessee

      Another great Hub in a long line of them, and here is one that combines common sense with a concept most of us are afraid to consider.

      Thanks for sharing Rafken!

    • dalton71482 profile image

      Jeremy Wade 5 years ago from Tennessee

      Is it really a bad thing that 8 billion dollars was redistributed because of the election. For the most part that money came from fund raising and most of the people that donate can afford to. I don't disagree with the fact that the current president shouldn't be spending time campaigning. I think that his actions as president should be all the campaigning he should need and he should not be away from the office to win over more votes.

    • crazyhorsesghost profile image

      Thomas Byers 5 years ago from East Coast , United States

      All of the primaries should be moved to one or two days. I see no reason to drag the election out for half a year. Have the primaries one month. The conventions the next and the election the next. Cut out all the BS.