8 Billion for Nothing
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?
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.
- Romney, Obama or the NWO
We know that it is election time but are the candidates being asked the right questions? What should they be being asked and why?
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.