I voted for the first time in 1968. I guess that you can do the math but I've been voting for a long time.
For as long as I can remember, the candidates have always been saying what they will do for the American public once they get into office. I have voted for some strictly on that basis and, like the majority of you, I have been disappointed on more than one occasion. Many times it was that I was wanting a different direction than the majority. Sometimes, the winner just did not do what he promised and others, the victor was hampered at every step by the opposite party. My greatest disappointments come when they just can't get the job done.
This year, in both the gubernatorial and presidential campaigns, our candidates seem to be finding more flaws with their opponent/s than actually solving the problems at hand. In last night's presidential debate, all of the speakers told of their grandiose plans to right the government, create jobs and lower taxes, all without losing any of the gains in our American lifestyle or costing anyone any more money.
Multiple strategies and multiple directions which arrive at the same point, low unemployment and good, high paying jobs.(i.e. full recovery from this recession). I would think that most economists think that this can not be done but economists are not running for President.
These debates serve the function of job interviews and allow the candidates to showcase their qualifications and accomplishments. It is too bad that they gloss over he details of how and focus on the broad statements of a job well done while leaving out the facts to support them. One thing that they all agree on is that we need to get Americans back to work, paying taxes and growing the economy. It just has to happen AFTER they get into office. The Obama administration cannot get any of the credit for any job creation.
I have been on both sides of job interviews before and have always been more impressed by the ones who had really done something lately and not he ones resting on way past performances.
Since the election is still over a year away and we need the jobs right now, maybe we should make part of the contest a real race to see which one will create the most jobs in the next 12 months. They each have a plan which they will be allowed to implement but only if the follow the same rules. They can not use public funds of any kind, they can not use tax breaks or incentives to lure jobs and they can not poach existing jobs from other areas in the U.S. The end result should be an unemployment rate of less than 5%. The candidate with the highest total of jobs to which he can be directly linked by the end of October 2012 should be declared the winner by acclamation.