ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on July 10, 2012

Should it be Obama or Romney?

The political conversation has suddenly turned into tax breaks for the middle class or top earners in the country; with politicians divided between what seemed like ordinary bread winners (the working people) on one side and the insanely rich on the other.

Those sections are important, as President Barack Obama's move to extend the Bush era tax breaks will be limited to small business owners having earnings below $250,000; but the Republicans are advocating for the extension of the "cuts" to cover those, who earned millions of dollars yearly (the very rich) as well.

They were saying that the economy would be better off, if the whole tax breaks were extended; but they were forgetting that the program has been around for many years, and the so called "job creators" have absorbed all the benefits from it for a longer time.

So, for the sake of fairness, it (program) should end for the wealthy, and that they should agree to paying more than what the average earner paid in taxes over those years that had favored them; because, if the economy was going to improve, all should equally chip in, with small businesses getting an extension of the tax breaks, as opposed to those, who have been privy to the benefits of the program.

According to many economic experts, they (wealthy) did not really need the extension of the Bush tax breaks.

Though, the debate hovered over the economy, and that was not a bad thing, but it has shifted from, for example, the character of the candidates, which was also an important issue, to dealing with just money.

The two candidates for the two main parties, Obama and Romney, have to have their integrity assessed in order to assure Americans that, whoever became president was a person of honest caliber and true moral background.

If that was known about the person running for that highest office in the land, there would be very little difficulty for many voters to decide as to whom to choose; and though, health and life history were to be considered among other things as being essential, the quality of a person's nature to be true to himself or herself and to the people that he or she was to lead, should be above all considerations.

With all the goings on in the campaign for the 2012 presidential election, people were subjected mostly to material things, with financial matters being at the forefront; as the topic now was about how much a candidate has raised in a month, compared to his or her opponent; and they (people) become exited and even hilarious about the millions of dollars flowing to a candidate as political contributions.

Yet, after all said and done, the level of honesty with which a person has conducted his or her life determined the respect, the trust and the adoration that others would have for him or her.

On one hand, it was hard to concentrate on the characteristics of a person, among the hustle and bustle of politics; but on the other hand, the choice of an honorable person should not be a luxury.

If that was achieved, then the whole nation would be proud and confident that it had a leader of immense character to compare with any other leader's in the world.

Though, that would not be what the media coverage of that person would be about; but it would be a reassuring thought that the person at the helm of the nation's affairs would not do anything that would amount to any kind of shame to himself or herself and his or her people.

The question now was, of the two candidates, Obama for the Democratic Party and Romney for the Republican Party, whom could the electorate believe in to always do the right thing? Considering the character of each of them.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.