Think About It

It has really come to the truth about both candidates, and the truth is, they are both lying.

How do I know this? Because I have been alive for more than thirty years. That’s right thirty, and that explains it all.

For the past thirty years I have heard every candidate tell me how they were going too save America. Well what I have seen was, my friends die in Viet Nam, friends of my sons die in Iraq, and many others lose their jobs to the overseas market.

What can you tell me that is the upside? That America has been successful in the auto industry? That china made products are not harmful to our young, or any of us? Has the cost of living been balanced? Do those whom have suffered at the hands of greed gain wealth live better lives? Have the working slaves of big money business reached their goals? No, is the answer to all of these questions, and neither candidate has said what they will do to change the facts. Both have said that America needs a change, but neither has said how they would do so.

I have heard them say they would not raise the taxes for those not earning 200,000 dollars. How about reducing the taxes? What are they going to do for those of us that don’t earn 30,000 dollars?

Nearly a half of million U.S. citizens have had their jobs taken away. Many have lost their homes to foreclosure. Yet, both candidates say they will help the new small business, what new?

Why not help those they have already destroyed? Instead of throwing people out of their homes, shouldn’t they be finding a way too help them keep their home? Such as dropping the high or any interest rate, and allow them to pay the principle only?

If either one of these candidates had a grip on how to survive without handouts from contributors, maybe they would see and understand the truth confronting the working class of America. Speaking of handouts, aren’t all political officials dependent on tax payers money? Therefore they are the same as welfare recipients, right? Which makes one wonder about a double standard. If you are employed by a federal, state, or city government, you are being paid by tax payers money. Should you be on welfare, you are receiving tax payers money. So why aren’t those of political employment forced to find a job within the privet sector after two years?

Why is it that those of high paid welfare (politicians) are also allowed to receive medical care, and retirement benefits paid in full by tax payers? Maybe these political candidates should start the new change reform by correcting their own (live off the tax payers money system.)

Here’s a concept of how too make change. When one votes, one is giving his or her endorsement and approval to the candidate of their choice. Equal to one being hired to preform a specific job. Well if John Doe, hires Paul Smith, why doesn’t John Doe, pay Paul Smith? This can easily be done. All registered votes should be required to vote by use of their social security numbers. This way those and only those whom voted for, or hired Paul Smith, will be taxed to pay for Paul Smith. Those who did not hire or vote for him are not to be charged.

With this system each voter would be responsible for a $1.00 a year payment to their candidate. Which would be a few hundred thousand dollars year for the winning politician.

From that yearly income, the winner would be responsible for his or her own lifestyle. Oh sure they won’t have $100.00 or $200.00 dollars a plate diners, not if they had too pay for them. But what they would have is, a more too reality sense of what the cost of living is to the blue collar worker. Do you think if they had to pay for their own and their families medical coverage, groceries, heating gas or oil, gasoline, electric, and so on, they would allow big companies set their own prices?

Think about it, if only those who voted for the winner, would you vote for either of these candidates?