posted
1) His wussiness on pushing through his judicial nominees 2) His craving for Teddy Kennedy's cooperation despite the Senator's constant trashing of him 3) The drug prescription bill 4) His signing the campaign-finance bill.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'd add more, but it's hard to when you generally agree with the premise (though I'm not 'pissed' at President Bush), but disagree largely with the content of the criticism.
posted
That's the bill upheld by the Supreme Court yesterday that makes it illegal for me to televise an ad saying "Vote for XXX" within a week or a month of an election.
posted
The federal government has nationalized health care for old people, so now we pay for their medicines as well.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was so annoying about 2001's farm bill? Someone please elaborate? I'm all about helping farmers...I do like food, and when it's cheap, I like it even better. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think the prescription drug benefit was wrong mainly because it is so slow to phase in and doesn't really deal with the main problems of high drug costs.
But then, I'd rather spend some money taking care of the Americans who went before us and helped build the country than I would on killing Iraqis.
Just my skewed priorities I guess. Certain GWB doesn't agree.
I happen to think that campaign reform is necessary. Were you actually thinking of taking out a TV ad prior to the next election? Probably not. What this bill does, in practical terms, is start to implement the limits everyone agreed to years ago, but then thwarted.
The real way to do this is as follows:
1) Only private individuals can contribute money to campaigns or political parties.
2) The dollar amount of individual contributions per candidate per election should be set low, like around $100.
The end result would be that candidates would have to actually talk to THE PEOPLE in order to fund their campaigns.
I don't think it limits your freedom of speech if you have the same freedom as everyone else. It simply balances it so that if you are super-wealthy, you don't ipso facto get MORE freedom of speech than anyone else.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like that Bush(43) hasn't ever used his veto. Not even once. This says to me either he doesn't know how to use it, or he lost the stamp and is too embarrassed to admit it.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Subsidies for farmers before was $90 billion a year.
Now it's $180 billion.
That's DOUBLED!!! He was BOUGHT! That was the "Thank You For the Election, Iowa - Let Me Double Your Entitlement Check." It still ticks me off.
I know some subsidies are necessary, but doubled? There are all sorts of antiquated laws in the country, but the one giving $30 million a year to alpaca farmers so we have enough wool to make WWII army uniforms has got to be one of the worst.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd rather spend some money taking care of the Americans who went before us and helped build the country
Of course you do. You're a baby boomer, and baby boomers are about to retire in the next ten years, so suddenly medicare gets expanded to include prescription drugs without a plan to keep from bankruptin the generation that's coming next.
Never mind that instead of Social Security being a function of the federal government, in twenty years, the federal government will be a sub-division of Social Security. As for who's going to pay for it, well, the baby boomers will be retired or toast. Who cares?
quote:The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete. Before Bush's election as President, the investigation was primarily concerned with the operational conspiracy and the careful evaluation of the cases against former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter and Lt. Col. Oliver L. North of the National Security Council staff, prior to their indictment in March 1988. This included a review of any exculpatory material that might have shown authorization for their conduct. In the course of this investigation, Vice President Bush was deposed on January 11, 1988. A year later Bush was President-elect, and OIC was engaged in the intensive preparation for the trial of North, which began on January 31, 1989. After the completion of the trials of North and Poindexter and the pleas of guilty of retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord and Albert Hakim, OIC broadened its investigation to those supporting and supervising Poindexter and North. This investigation developed a large amount of new material with which it intended to question President Bush. His interrogation was left to the end because, as President, he obviously could not be questioned repeatedly. It was Independent Counsel's expectation that he would be available after the completion of the 1992 Presidential election campaign. In light of his access to information, Bush would have been an important witness. In an early interview with the FBI in December 1986 and in the OIC deposition in January 1988, Bush acknowledged that he was regularly informed of events connected with the Iran arms sales, including the 1985 Israeli missile shipments.2 These statements conflicted with his more extreme public assertions that he was ``out of the loop'' regarding the operational details of the Iran initiative and was generally unaware of the strong opposition to the arms sales by Secretary of Defense Weinberger and Secretary of State George P. Shultz. He denied knowledge of the diversion of proceeds from the arms sales to assist the contras.3 He also denied knowledge of the secret contra-resupply operation supervised by North.4
And despite the fact that Noriega worked for GHB during his tenure as CIA Director, and Bush's access to information during the transaction, Bush knows nothing about the whole Iran Contra debacle. He walks away untouched. This man is either incredible obtuse or has some mighty powerful friends protecting him.
2) Tariffs on manufactured goods lower than the tariffs on raw goods.
It makes no sense to me that we prefer to give jobs to people outside of the US, while protecting those few in the US who produce raw goods. Can you say, "favoritism to the oil and steel industries"?
quote:In a decision largely driven by his political advisers. President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection.Eighteen months later, key administration officials have concluded that Bush's order has turned into a debacle. Some economists say the tariffs may have cost more jobs than they saved, by driving up costs for automakers and other steel users.
3)He doesn’t appear to make an effort to really get to know the names and pronounciations of the people and places he works with internationally.
4)This is probably not his fault, but he’s as good a single target as any. The dollar continues to lose ground against the Euro which has caused me to have a 35% increase in my cost of goods. An increase that can’t be passed on to the consumer because it grossly exceeds domestic inflation. Basically, if I pass on the increase, I’d kill our sales.
How is limiting the amount of money I can donate to a candidate any different that limiting what ads I can purchase?
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I want some way to ensure that candidates are not swayed by special interests. I think that's more important than ensuring that everyone can spend whatever they want to say whatever they want.
You can still say whatever you want. If it's interesting, people will listen.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
We should really move to a system of national health care as soon as possible. It just makes no sense to have people without some form of coverage. It's a recipe for epidemics, for one thing. It is also just horrible to see people reduced to poverty by illness or injury. The existing safetynets are not sufficient to ensure that people who lack coverage don't end up destitute when struck by medical problems.
Basically, we wouldn't need a drug benefit in Medicare if our political leaders weren't paid for the drug industry. It's just one example of why we need a way to take back our government from the special interest groups.
But, while we debate the lack of political will and the moral bankruptcy of our leaders, real live people are going broke or going without medicine. And that's not right.
By the way, Social Security would've been in great shape if: 1) GWB hadn't wiped out the surplus 2) Our politicians had stayed away from the funds.
Basically, Social Security would be solvent if they invested the money properly during the earning lives of all us baby boomers. But the governments we've elected have squandered the money and not built up a reserve. I contributed more than my fair share to the fund, and I think it should be there for me. That it isn't means that politicians have basically committed acts of fiscal malfeasance for the past 40 or so years.
Now you short-sighted youngsters come along and deny me the results of that lifetime's investment because you fear that it won't be there when you finally retire.
Well, I guess that might happen. It was looking like it might happen before I retire. And it still might.
Especially since I'll probably never be able to afford to retire. At least not here. I'll end up having to move to South America or something.
Oh well. At least I'll be able to laugh at you trying to get a benefit for your old age.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
