Thanks to everyone who has, in good faith, come here and addressed the issues civilly. I learned from those of you (Frogs, Wrabbit, Dreine, Heff,
newcovenant, and many others who entered thoughtful posts) some of the answers to my questions, and I appreciate it. While I do have strong opinions,
I also am capable of listening.
Three of the main points I see here (if I were so unlucky as to have to solve this mess) are:
We, on this thread, have shown an ability to hear one another out, ask questions of one another, and discuss alternatives and middle ground. That is
the reason for our system, to find some middle ground so the majority of the people benefit.
2) Debt and its child Compound Interest.
I think perhaps that is the worst part - in the old days "business" was primarily done domestically (but make no mistake, we have ALWAYS -- since the
days of the Europeans first arriving here and in other places rich with desirable resources -- traded internationally. And before that, of course,
which is the nature of humanity -- to move around, to trade goods and skills, and to pull together to solve problems), and people paid for what they'd
borrowed and then were satisfied (I own my home and car, and paid back everything I borrowed and then saved a bit for retirement). That doesn't
happen anymore - people want more and more and more and more....and others lend them more and more and more and more, and it never ends.
3) Employment availability
If large corporations that are publicly held focus on their bottom line and investors above ALL ELSE, and move the jobs to cheaper exotic locations,
that means Americans are out of work proportionately.
. Therefore, small businesses MUST be supported, we should shop locally, buy
locally, sell locally unless there is NO other alternative, and then the entire locality should have say in what to do next.
Domestic workers shut out in the cold = the rich getting richer. That is not "hard work" that got those Ritchie Riches there - it was by taking
, and then withholding opportunities from other (who were just as capable and more
accessible, but COST MORE to put to work)
countrymen and women.
Then the rich complain that they don't want to make up for having taken away those opportunities, and that just doesn't seem right.
It's true that Obama has not been a demanding; he has expected Congress to work together and they failed. But leadership has to do with example
I despise the acts of war this country engages in every 25 years or so, and I want for the USA to butt out
of other people's problems and
really feel ill equipped to discuss that topic, except that it seems to me our "military" is "big enough" (too big, really). Much of modern warfare
has to do with power and money and resources, not so much with religious ideology or forms of government.
I think that was Romney's undoing, as many here have said, is that he is the very epitome of someone who is rich and who took away American
opportunities - giving them instead to conglomerate corporations and foreign labor pools - and then also
took his profits and hid them overseas
to avoid accountability to the very people whose jobs he eliminated.
I, for one, can not look past that. That was, for me, the absolute bottom line about him. Why on earth anyone would think he would improve the
economy and create jobs HERE is simply beyond my comprehension. Maybe he would, maybe he had some sort of "plan", but, 'once a CEO who worships
profit, always a CEO who worships profit.'
There was nothing in his background that indicated he would do things any differently. So, I was unable for even a moment to consider him as a
genuine and well-meaning leader.
Again, thanks for all who participated, I hope we've made some tiny forward movement to reconciliation at least among the few of us who entered the
edit on 9-11-2012 by wildtimes because: incompleted thoughts and sentences.