The Absent Uncle: Debate

As I write this today, our duly elected representatives are “debating” the merits of a compromise bill. The bill is designed to stave off our countries reneging on the financial bills we are continually running up, a budget that is not totally defined and subject to interpretation, plus this bill is supposed to kick the can down the road far enough that it should not affect our next round of elections for President and Congress.

But those elected – well – they inherit the can that got kicked down the road.

Sooner (I hope sooner) or later we, as citizens need to demand an honest debate, establish priorities, plot a plan forward that defines who we are as a country, helps those in need, and determines a way to pay for it all. 

I have to go back to my trusty Webster’s. Debate: (I think definition No. 1 covers it best): “to discuss opposing reasons, argue. “

We certainly have opposing reasons and are not lacking for arguments. But what we are lacking is Webster’s definition No. 3: “to consider reasons for and against.” Minds that are already made up are not subject to debate and we have far too many that really don’t want to consider reasons for and against their own beliefs. 

The unknown ramifications of a default – both the scare tactics and the actual unknown results are sobering. Do we really want to find out what that can do to our economy and personal resources? It is in debate – listening to what you are for and against – is where we will find that sweet spot that the citizens of the U.S. are looking for.   

Friday morning: So, after all the drama; the tough talk back and forth, as they say in Washington – they made the sausage that our democracy is famous for. The day of reckoning is coming – that can – has been kicked way too many times.