The amazing do nothing President?

Remove all ads!

What the hell is going on in America Gas prices go
to outrageous hights, our borders are flooded with
water & aliens. The budget out of control. Still in Iraq. A congress with nothing better to do than take bribes, chase prostitutes and play poker
while wasting tax payer money on god knows what at this point. As bad as I disliked Clinton, I am
starting to miss him. If I were a republican politician I would be very worried right now. and what is the president doing about things? Who Knows. Does he know?

 

1. What can the president do about gas prices? Congress could do something, but I think the president is limited in what he can do.

2. How is the illegal alien problem exclusively laid on Bush? Clinton did NOTHING about this.

3. Budget. Complex issue there. This is laid on the shoulders of both the legislative branch AND executive branch. This is a serious weakness of ALL our current politicians (mainly because it doesn't cost votes anymore -- Perot made it an election issue, but nobody has taken up the torch).

4. Still in Iraq. Damn shame. I've never agreed with the war. This one is right on target.

5. Congress indescretions. How is this a fault of the president? Both Reps and Dems are equally in the limelight here.

6. NO! NO MORE CLINTON'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE! Just the thought of Slick Willie as the First Lady is scary.

7. Perhaps the republican politicians should be scared. So should the democrat politicians. Neither side has really performed well over the past few years (decades?).

8. Bush only knows what he's told -- just like every media-made president before him (Reagan was the worst at this).

 

Clinton made balancing the budget an issue. He even closed the government down for a bit just to show how serious he actually was about making it happen. Like him or not, he was the first president we've had in a very long time to submit a balanced budget every year.

 

1. Gas prices would be high right now regardless of who the president was. Granted, severely interrupting the supply from Iraq did not help matters, but that isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue is we are now using gas as fast as we can pump it out of the ground. Back in the 90s the average refinery was operating at 85% capacity. So if a few went down (like with Katrina last year) there were others to pick up the slack. Now, however, the average refinery is operating at 99.1% capacity, so the margin for error in production rate is non-existant. Moreover, even if we pumped oil faster, it still needs to be refined, and there simply aren't enough refineries available for increased production. (Oh, and yes, many places are in the process of building new refineries, but it takes about 7 years from the time you break ground to when the refinery is operational, so there's no short term answer.)

2. While it is true that Clinton did nothing about immigration, the fact of the matter is no one has done much of anything regarding the Mexican border for decades. The last time an immigration reform bill was passed was back in the 60s, so this has been a problem that has been building since before many of us were even born.

3. Since WWI began, there have been only two presidents who made a balanced budget a priority. One was Clinton, as Drew rightly points out. The other was Dwight Eisenhower, although he only managed to get a balanced pudget passed by Congress in two of his eight years in office. Still, a good chunk of the blame for the deficit racked up in the last five years rightfully SHOULD go at Bush's feet. The War in Iraq costs about $6 billion per month (up from about $4.2 milliion per month last year), and you simply can't be spending that kind of money, while giving tax break after tax break without going into debt.

4. Iraq remains a war of choice.

5. This is one of the few areas where I disagree with T2Bruno. It is true that we have seen indecretions in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans, but to say that the two are equal is simply not true. When you look at the severity of the offenses, the number of people involved, and the influence these people have on shaping policy, it all points to a much bigger problem on the Republican side than the Democrat side, regarding any of those issues individually, and only more so when considering them collectively.

6. I do not want Hillary as president, although at this point, even if the Democrats decided to nominate Bobo the clown, they would probably get my vote.

7. It is true that both the Democrat and the Republican Congressional members are viewed unfavorably, and there are a great many incumbents from both parties who have justifiable fears. However, the Republicans have more to lose if the public gets into the mind set of "Throw the bums out!" because they hold more seats.

8. Bush knows very little, although I'm speaking in terms of general knowledge, not knowledge specific to the president. Truth be told, while the president is given access to any information he desires, most presidents posess neither the time nor the expertise required to micro-manage every issue. I do not believe that Bush is a particularly intelligent person, but his lack of knowledge about what is happening in the presidency is probably not unique. Presidents find out what the major issues are, and what the bottom line is - the nuts and bolts are always done by others.

 

The current government is one of the worst in history. And that's just not my opinion, but the opinion of most Americans as well. I liked Bill Clinton and voted for him twice. As much as conservatives love to hate him, he is still out there trying to make a difference on a variety of issues, which have little to do with political gain. Conservatives love to gloss over his accomplishments, which has been pointed out with the balanced budget he achieved with a Republican congress.

Right now Hillary is one of the best friends the Republicans have and they know it. They are running some token candidate against her in the Senate race in NY - yeah, the mayor of Yonkers - which proves that they are not even serious about unseating her. And when she appears next to Bill, by far he upstages her. Hillary is on her way to becoming a great Senator, but I don't think she would be that good a president, at least not as good as Bill was. They are not the same just because they are husband and wife.

Those who say that things were always this bad in government have short memories, or just weren't paying attention. There really was life before the Big Brother style government, gross incompetence in government (Katrina), 9/11, the Iraq War; a stock market that can't even make it back to the level it was at when Clinton was prez almost six years ago; there's gross corruption in congress on a huge scale, with the house majority leader having to flee back home, attempting to keep himself out of prison.

And where are the Democrats? Let me know if you find them....

 

I still have my "Dave Barry for President 2004" sticker. For those who don't know of him, Dave Barry is a popular humor columnist in the US. And I have to admit I'm seriously considering crossing off the 4, writing in 8, and putting it on my bumper. Alternatively...Bobo for President!

Though I have to admit, if the Pubs put up a candidate head & shoulders over the Dems candidate (probably not that hard to do with the Dems' current incompetence), I'd probably vote for him. Or just abstain. Either way, the Dems have to show me something to get my vote, and so would the Pubs.

 

Whom are you referring to here, Fel? This comment is strange when one considers that the Dems are not the ones who are running the government, but the Republicans. The problem with the Dems is that they have not mounted a decent opposition to the Republicans. It's almost as if they are too timid.

The first thing they need to do is scrap the entire Republican budget put forth by George II; cut the fat from it, (which is easy because the Republicans put huge amounts of fat into it); and begin a timed withdrawal from Iraq. I'm not saying "cut and run" but create a timetable by which the Iraqis can take over their own problems.

The country of Iraq may already be lost to civil war, but that's the problem that George II has made for everyone. He can't solve it, so someone needs to end the steady drain on American blood and treasure into Iraq. Someone needs to "accomplish the mission" that the Republican leadership can't. That also means cutting off the fat contractors who are getting rich off of American blood and money in Iraq. Someone needs to show some real courage regarding this issue.

The high price of gas is an easy fix: start converting to alternatives. Brazil did it in ten years, and it's a country of over 100 million people. We can too. You can expect little from those in Washington because too many people in the highest places are getting rich off the current situation. Once we stop importing so much oil, the situation in the Middle East will be fixed - once the oil money stops flowing in, countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, will have second thoughts about their place in the scheme of things. The average American has been blackmailed over oil for too long, and it's time that someone put a stop to it.

All "working Americans" should have access to decent retirement, education and healthcare. That does not mean to turn over America's future to corporate America, but to hold it accountable for cutting benefits, such as healthcare and pension plans in order to feed corporate greed and avarice. Americans have seen enough corporate scandals to know how these guys operate with the current government in power. That means that the interest of the average American is not the priority of those crafting current policy and laws as well as those administering justice from the bench.

George II said that his "moment of accounting" was the election of 2004. But that was another one of his lies: He is held accountable every moment he is in office by the Constitution of the United States and the laws of this country. It's little wonder that George II and his ministers despise both so much.

 

My point exactly, good sir. They haven't done ****. Not even the stuff that they're still allowed to do.

 

Without control of any of the branches of government they are not allowed to do anything of substance. But they can provide a good alternative platform to the current one, which they can present to the American people. The first thing they can do is unify their party. They can do this through their leadership. It makes no sense if the strongest leader in their party (Hillary) sounds just like George II on the important issues. While Howard Dean sounds like a ranting lunatic without much in the way of constructive policy.

 

CtR,

While I agree with most of what you say, I do not think the Brazil example is applicable to the U.S. You see, while Brazil has a population of about 100 million (approximately 1/3 the size of the U.S.) a significant portion of that population does not own cars. Morevoer, being in a tropical climate, they don't spend nearly the amount of money heating their homes as people in the U.S.

That is not to say that the U.S. should not look into and start developing alternative fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol. The problem is there's no way that those sources will ever get to the point of being able to replace our need for oil.

I read an article recently - I wish I could find it to post it directly - that stated in order for the U.S. to produce enough ethanol and biodiesel to meet our needs, we would need to use 97% of all land in the continental U.S. to grow corn, sugar and soybeans. Obviously this isn't a practical solution. Never mind that the percentage of land unsuitable for farming in the U.S. is far greater than 3%, we still want to grow crops for food. So there's no way we can even convert all existing farmland to grow the crops necessary to produce biodiesel and ethanol.

That is not to say that we shouldn't look into these sources. Within 10 years, it's reasonably possible for ethanol and biodiesel to be meeting 10%-15% of our fuel needs. Also within 10 years, we could convert to a hybrid fleet of vehicles, saving another 20%-25% of fuel useage. So while I don't think we'll ever get to the point of Brazil, I do see the possibility of reducing our fuel consumption somewhere around the range of 1/3 to 1/2 of what we're currently using.

 

This post was not primarily intended as a knock on President Bush. I was curious to see if any conservatives out there who, like me, are disipointed in the President's performance of late. I beleive he can do something about everthing I mentioned.

1. Gas Prices: If he can push through his Court Appointments he can push through drilling in ANWR. Loosen EPA and Dept. of Interior restrictions. He could mandate refineries to be built in the countries interior Perhaps along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers and site national security reasons. He could Push for real alternative fuel sources insted of giving us the ol' Slick Willie line of yea I'm for that and then do nothing about it. The oil market is as much about speculation as it is supply&demand. If the oil companies saw real action from him they would lower prices. They would smell thier own demise and suddenly they would find a way to lower prices.

2. The illegal alien problem is comming to a boil (on the backside of America) and he makes it worse by offering his path to citizenship (desn't he know one already exist!). It may not be exclusively his problem but it is America's problem and expect more out of him than we got out of Clinton. But I fear that business has bought him off here just as they have with oil concerns.

3. Where the budget is concerned he could put his foot down but I guess this is how he got his Court Appointments pushed through, he bought his support with our money. Balancing the budget was not a Clinton accomplishment, it was part of the 1994 Republican "Contract with America" (ah Camelot). Clinton co-opted this issue then made a big grandstand over it, bled the military dry to do it and smiled to the camera.

4. I am sick of Rumsfeld saying we're doing fine over there. Yea we have the best troops in the world but if you can't let them use at least the same rules of engagement that law enforcment used in Waco,Tx why fight at all. We should secure the oil fields with impenetrable security, get those fields producing more than ever until we get our mony back, give the Iraqies one year too stand up a force and (this will be unpopular) attack the Islamist somewher else to take some of the heat out of Iraq.

5. I could care less about who is the most to blame. If you shoot a person twice while I stab him once am I less an offender than you? Too much of this reasoning goes on in politics and we the people encourage it in the name of partisanship. Bush should be out in front bringing all of the athority at his command aimed at both parties and let the chips fall where they may. I am sick of his Clintonesque "I'm very troubled by these issues" response to everything.

6. I hate the CLINTON'S as well but when he was there he was doing something even if it was wrong.

7. I am here to tell you when the Republicans loose a guy like me they are in bad shape. Because when a bunch of Hippiecommunist who want to take my guns, call me a superstitious peasant because I believe in the Gospel of Jesus, put sexual preference on the same footing as a civil right, abort babies just because they can, be nice to bad guys (because we don't want sink to thier level and they will respect that). An I could go on and on. When these kind of people start looking as legit as you, you got trouble!

8. Bush knows as much as I do. So he should be able to do something even if it isn't about the things I have named.

 

Really? I was in the military at that time and I seem to recall getting the largest payraise the military has ever been given under Bill Clinton. Bush, to contrast, has been cutting the benefits (like burial and hazardous duty pay) of my friends who are currently serving in Iraq. Your facts are wrong, here.

To put it bluntly, the republicans do not see a balanced budget as a necessity. They actually view borrowed money as an investment in our future.....not an albatross around our neck. A balanced budget is not a priority for republicans because they actually like deficit spending. Whether doing so was right or wrong, it was Clinton who put his foot down when he actually closed the government down to show the republican congress (which had been stonewalling him on the budget and refused to submit a balanced budget) that he meant business.

 

Get your money back? Shouldn't have invaded in the first place with piss poor planning. Live with the mistakes and take responsibility for your actions.

As for your rules of engagement comments, do you mean something like this , or this . That will teach those raghead Iraqis to mess with the best troops in the world.

 

@ Drew, I can not speak to your experience in the military. I had a lot of friends and family in the military and a lot of them qualified for foodstamps at that time. Supplies for training and replacement parts for equipment droped. So the wealth you experienced may not have been a wide spread phenomenon. As to the budget, I think you are right about republicans currently in control. They see borrowed money the same as money in the bank and use the war to justify anything they spend it on. I hate to rehash Clinton,People either love him or they hate him and there is no changing thier mind or perspective. Suffice to say I hate him!

@ Cúchulainn, I agree that some piss poor planning went on there but Sadam was a problem that was going to have to be delt with sooner or later. That fact is disputed only by non-Americans and the Hippiecommunist faction in America. I respect and understand the desetion of other countries but I am an American and I have our best intrest in mind when I say the American people deserve thier money be repaid in part for giving the Iraqi people thier freedom. Secure oil fields are in the best Interest of the Iraqi people as well. It is easy to sit in a free country and say it wasn't worth it, but when I see Iraqi police being killed by the hundreds and more signing up to take thier place I am more proud of them than I am of my own countrymen fighting there and I think freedom must be quite valuable indeed. As far taking responsibility for our actions, we have buried nearly 3,000 responsibilities for our actions.
As for my rules of engagement comments, I think if it was well and good to treat our own countrymen in this manner it is well enough treatment for foreign enemies.
I do not see the Iraqi people as Ragheads, I am not a racist. I see the Iraqis as a people giving thier sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers in a fight for FREEDOM despite to international community turning thier backs on them. No matter what anyone says to badmouth the USA even the things that are true ask yourself, "Would I prefer to be living in the Glorious Third Reich or the Workers Paridise of the USSR?" If your answer is no then give us the benifit of doubt, forgive us our trespasses before you convict us as racist war mongers. And raise a glass to old glory for the good that we have done.

But I did not start this thread to debate the Iraq war or what a great country America is. I would prefer to discuss conservatives disipointed in the President's performance in general. If anyone wants to debate the Iraq war or what a great country America is, start a thread and I will gladly defend both.

 

Obviously. And that would be?

Just more of the same: Keep beating that same old drum (oil).

And who's going to pay for all these refineries? The big oil companies have little interest in anything that would bring down the price of oil.

There's no arguing with that....

[ June 04, 2006, 14:12: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Thanks for clearing that up Bassil. I misunderstood some of your comments, and I can see that you are not one of those delightful "lets nuke the entire f*cking middle east" people.

 

Despite the incompetence of George Bush, I have never "hated" him. I have "hated" what he has done to the country and I despise his lack of leadership, but I have never "hated" him. Also, I don't hate him because he is a liar, Bill Clinton was never a very truthful man either, as we all well know.

I have accepted the fact (with reluctance) that modern politicians rarely embrace the truth, which is a complete shame. Politicians seem to feel that the people are to be manipulated by misrepresentaion rather than led, or regarded as equal partners in governing. A good example of this manipulation is the current issue of gay marriage. There's nothing like preying on people's fears and emotions to get the desired results. I guess it's just in the nature of the beast.

[ June 05, 2006, 19:40: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@ Cúchulainn, its easy to misconstrue me as a rightwing nutbar sometimes. But my reasoning is never based on racism or xenophobia or homophobia or any other unreasonable hatred. I think a lot of every day Americans like me are often taken as such because a few rightwing extremist express similar views for thier own hate filled reasons, like you say 'nuke the ragheads'. I belive the mid-east peoples have a rich culture deserving of respect and freedom. thier dictators know that if thier people were ever free of Islamic zealotry they will want the same freedoms that Americans enjoy, we may be lead by a fool but at least it is the fool we choose. The mid-east peoples deserve at least the same accord. For to long they have either been oppressed by dictators proped up by the west or kept safe by Islamic extremist. But I fear bush is not the man to help them. He has used them and us to make his friends and family in oil and other business richer. If the international community had helped instead of turning thier bacs the Iraqi people would be better protected have a stronger standing at this time. Maybe they will value thier freedom more now, considering what it is costing them in blood they won't give it up so easy. Thanks for seeing I am not one of those delightful "lets nuke the entire f*cking middle east" people.

@ Chandos,

I don't care if he beats an empty coffe can if it brings down gas prices for every day working class dogs like me and you. Don't get me wrong, I believe we need need to pursue alternitive fuels vigorously. I am tired of hearing bush say that hydrogen is the best and cleanest alternitive fuel out there and then leave it up to the free market to develope it, what a load. I would love to see the president give Al gore some kind of commission to pursue alternitive fuels and Al gore go back to being the man he was before he met Bill Clinton, I can poop in one hand and wish in the other but I know which one will get full first.

Big oil knows it's day is comming in america thats why they are hitting so hard now.It woul pay them to play nice so that maybe the government will have a good basis to tell the leftist in this country to stow it and let the oil companies have a few more fields. I believe the military and a lot of the private sector will still need oil even after we have alternitive fuels making a stand in our energy market.

I make no claim to being above average inteligence, my point was that if I can deduce these few simple steps to at least make it appear as though the president is doing something besides giving gays a hard time, surely a man in his position could do as much or more. But, I think you knew that. I think you were making a juvenile attack to insult me.
As to my hatred of Clinton. I am sure we both can come up with a laundry list of things he and Bush have done that are dishonest, self serving and stupid. It is More of a personal hatred I have for clinton. Partly because I believe he sold American secrets to the Chinese. And mostly because he hated me first. After I vote for this S.O.B. he tuns around and makes people like me out to be some kind of redneck, wifebeating, Timothy McVey types who's life long ambition is to join the KKK or some damn malitia just because I am southern conservative gun owner. Hell, he is was from Arkansas, he knew better. He only cared about the money left wing anti-firearm groups would give him. While I will admit Clinton did a few good things for this country I also believe he betrayed America and I know he betrayed me personally. My reasons may seem petty or unfounded to you but they are my reasons and they deserve as much consideration as your reasons for liking him. Cheer up, Bush is slowly closing in on him in my estimation.

 

Don't be so sensitive, BW. My comment could be spun a numer of ways: as an attack on George II, or on the comment you crafted. It was not an attack on you - really, only on the comment itself. As I pointed out, I have nothing against anyone personally, I only judge actions and results.

As prez, George II has access to information and knowledge that you and I can only dream about. He is supposed to know way more than you or I about what's going on in the country and the world at large. He is, afterall, the most powerful man in the world. It's pretty scary to think on... yes?

 

The only reason that low ranking military members can qualify for foodstamps is that they either get free housing (which is not counted as income) or they get a non-taxable allowance for housing called BAH, which is not considered for the purposes of taxation or government assistance. An E-1 (lowest possible military rank) stationed in baltimore gets a BAH of $888.00 a month if he is single and $1,110 if he is married. This BAH is not taxed as regular income and is not considered when considering the military member for food stamps. So, a married entry level soldier with no tenure (your pay goes up the longer you serve, whether you get promoted or not) is getting an additional 13,320 dollars a year which he does not have to declare for income tax. His base pay will be 1,273.50 a month after 4 months (in other words, by the time he's finished boot camp). So....he gets 15282.00 a year to start plus and additional 13,320 dollars a year for a total of 28,602.00 a year. Of course, he'll be promoted to E-2 before his first year is even up as long as he doesn't do anything stupid......and will be bumped to 1,427.00 a month or 17,124.00 a year...putting him at 30,000 dollars a year within a year of joining up. He's still taxed as if he was only making the $17,000, though. Within 3 years he will be at least an E-3 (I was an E-4 inside of two years) for a total of 1,595.70 a month or $19,148.40 per year, in addition to that BAH which sets the total at $32,468.40 per year.....but they still get taxed and recieve government aid as if they are making less than 20K. The military members I've known who whined about their pay usually joined out of high school and had no idea what it was like to be a civillian. I didn't even factor in the $250.00 a month (non-taxable, of course) they give you for food......

EDIT: I should have been a recruiter.

[ June 07, 2006, 00:41: Message edited by: Drew ]