It is no secret that in 2008 the Democratic party took advantage of Americans by directly linking all of the Republican party to then President George W. Bush. Why would you vote for another President Bush, four more years of a failed economy? The fact is, there was no candidate named "George W. Bush" running for president in 2008, and no candidate agreed one-hundred percent with President Bush on policy. To the Democrats credit, Barack Obama and the Democrats ran a stronger campaign than John McCain and the Republican party. John McCain was unable to differentiated himself enough from former President George W. Bush. In addition to Americans fearing four more years of President Bush's policies, Americans wanted to be apart of history. Let's face reality right now: A major part of Barack Obama being elected into office in 2008 was because he was half-black, and Americans wanted to be apart of history, and see the first African American be elected to become the President of the United States. Many may argue with me on that statement, so to back-up my argument, there was a TV interview during the campaign asking Obama supporters to name one accomplishment Obama has made during his political career. A majority of the supporters were unable to name even one accomplishment, and their responses mainly included "He's African American/Black" and "He's a good talker." As the interviewer pointed out; these are not accomplishments. So what does this argument have to do with the 2012 presidential elections?
If you get into a political debate with Obama supporters today, their argument will most likely include the words "Bush." To my surprise, a couple of people even admired Obama because he only increased the debt by $4 trillion, compared to Bush's $10 trillion. Are Americans really going to vote for candidates who can increase the debt the least? How about voting for a candidate who's going to decrease our deficit?
I am a Ron Paul supporter. I've heard Ron Paul be called names such as "crazy", "radical", "old fool", and so on, but I have yet to meet someone who can debate using a sound political argument that doesn't include name-calling. My arguments include subjects such as foreign policy, the federal reserve, and spending, and the oppositions arguments include subjects such as George W. Bush and name-calling. My point being: Where's the argument? Ron Paul has pointed out that the federal reserve offered a giant loan to Goldman Sachs with an interest rate of 0.01 percent, essentially a free loan at the expense of the American people. The federal reserve also gave loans to failing banks, failing industries, etc; at the expense of the American people. Why are businesses that were irresponsible and deserved to fail, getting bail-out money? To save the economy? Capitalism is a beautiful thing, when a business fails, competition takes it's place. Let's face reality again: the Federal Reserve was there to help it's friends when they were in trouble, at YOUR expense.
As a business Administration major in college, I find it hard to believe that printing money we don't have, and throwing it at failing industries is going to somehow fix our economy. It just does not make any economic sense. For one, the value of our dollar goes down, and two, it ultimately comes at the expense of you and your children, and even grandchildren. So how do we go about fixing the economy?
Ron Paul says it perfectly when he talks about our foreign policy. We are all around the world, and it isn't free. We cannot police the world, it's just not financially possible, and it's irresponsible. Ron Paul also talks about setting an example for the world; and I agree. So we can start "fixing" the economy by completely changing our foreign policy, and that will cut our foreign spending dramatically. That's step one. If we can complete step one, we're on the right track. The problem is, will America wake up and elect a president that will complete step one?