Government Shut Down & ObamaCare Solution

Comments Off    Share on Facebook
ShortLink:

As the debate or the news media rages on about the shutdown, the ‘non essential jobs’ and the facts of who isn’t working and that we cannot get the monthly jobs report this month yet because that part of the government is non-essential it cause me to think.  How about you, have you thought about it?  Non-essential now there’s a word yeah you think you know what it means well it doesn’t mean you are second class, unloved or that we don’t like you, in fact it is impersonal not based on the way, the skill or the efficiency with which a person or group of persons do their job(s)!  I mean this I have a masseuse I believe she helps with my wellness and well being, helps in keeping my back healthy as well as my overall health.  However, she is non-essential to my daily living!  My grandfather lived to 93, he worked long and hard on his farm for food for the family as well as at his day job running heavy equipment and he never had a massage a day in his life and he was as healthy until the month he died.

Dictionary.com

non·es·sen·tial [non-uh-sen-shuhl]

  • adjective: not essential; not necessary: Nonessential use of gasoline was forbidden during the war.
  • noun: a nonessential thing or person.
  • Synonyms: unnecessary, incidental, extrinsic.

So how does all of this relate to Government Shut Down and ObamaCare?  If a job is non-essential or a luxury if you will and you are in great debt, what do you do?  Well you stop it.  If you go into bankruptcy you can’t have credit or create new credit and debt so if you cut non-essential items then managing your budget or in this case debt and our tax dollars become a lot me logical.  So wouldn’t it be logical to propose that we cut spending, not all non-essential people need to be out of work, because frankly some of those jobs are essential to our society and they way we want our country run, but we need great leaders to make tough decisions and run our country!

If a CEO is doing well he is well paid and gets bonuses and incentives, if he is not he is removed!  If you pay someone a flat pay and they have no hope or incentive to do better, how good of a job do they do?  In most cases they get some work done, but take no ownership and work only what is expected.

Would it be fair to say that we should only elect people to office in the government to make decisions with our tax dollars, health care (apparently) and national budget that have run a business for at least some period of time?  Do they have to be a millionaire or rich, NO; do they have to have been successful with all their businesses, NO; but they should be able to understand why they were successful or why they failed and therefore realize how something (a country in this case) should be run.  I mean did they learn from their mistakes, can they explain why their business failed?  Under funding, mismanagement, poor staff, sub standard product or just they were overwhelmed and could handle the pressure.  OR They were a rousing success because…

Because you inherited a lot of money doesn’t mean you know how to manage money or make money it just means someone in your family before you did.  So who do you think is best qualified to make money, run a company or a country and make good business decisions?  A lawyer (even one who is rich from large lawsuit settlements), a trust fund kid, a life long student/intern?  Is it any of these or aren’t there some better choices to get things going in the right direction.

Essential truths learned from success and failures not non-essential problems created by mismanagement!

Well I got this out through several ADD disruptions and without a proofread before posting we’ll check it later to see if it makes a bit of sense!

 

Comments are closed.