The amazing do nothing President?

Remove all ads!

1.)As has been said before, the President doesn't have much control over gas prices. In all honesty, neither does congress. Blame the gas companies, blame OPEC, blame Katrina for damages, but don't try to blame the President.

2.)Again, as has been said, the illegal alien problem has been here for decades and it isn't changing any time soon as I see it. The best way to lessen the illegal alien problem is to make Mexico a more stable and productive nation itself.

3.)Budget has, again, been an issue for decades, regardless of the President. I personally blame the American people for this. The real problem is that the people want all the benefits of a government that takes care of them, but none of the costs. If you want a national health plan, you'll have to pay. If you want the government to clean up New Orleans, you have to pay. And budget isn't an issue because the economy is strong. People are happy when the economy is strong.

4.)Iraq. Oh boy, don't get me started there. Iraq needed to be done and it was going to be messy no matter how we did it. Could things have been better? Sure, but not as much as everyone seems to think. To pull out now would mean a collapse of the nation and civil wars.

5.)Political corruption, what a shocker. The President is looking good in this light. He hasn't taken bribes, broken into hotels, or anything like that. Btw, political corruption knows no political parties.

6.)If the democratic party pust Hillary up for their next candidate, I think they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

7.)We've needed to throw about 1/2 the bums out and replace them with their next-door neighbors for years, and this year is no excpetion. I have a bad view of congress in general.

8.)People think Bush doesn't know anything because he doesn't talk well. I'll never understand how he got elected to the presidency with such poor speaking skills, but he's a man of action, not words. His words have been poorly prepared and delivered, but his actions have been appropriate.

@Chanos:
This government is far from one of the worst in history, its actually pretty damn good all things considered. The economy is strong, even though its been dealt blow after blow over the past few years (9/11, Enron, Katrina, all of it). There's real progress in alternative energies, which aren't really ready for America yet anyway (if we switched over to hydrogen fuel cells today, you'd be paying a lot more at the pump). There are concerns about war, but war always brings concerns. There are concerns about 'big brother', but those are poorly based and over-inflated by the media.

And as for the 'gross incompetance in the governent (Katrina)', wake up everybody. FEMA was never meant to prepare for natural disasters. FEMA was meant to clean up afterwards. If you want to blame someone for how badly that went, blame the local government who screwed the people every way they could.

Also, Clinton was worse in 'handling' big business than GW is. The government has become addicted to contractors, but that's nothing new. Frankly, I'd like to see the government reap some profit from the things they spent money to develope. Tang was developed by NASA for the space program, but do you think the government has seen one penny more than taxes from its sale?

Modern? This has been going on for centuries. Did you know that the original reason cocaine was banned in the US was not because it was dangerous? It wasn't that dangerous at the time, it wasn't very pure. It was banned because politicians billed it as a 'black drug' and blamed all black violence on it. Marajuana as well. They said it made mexicans rape white women and murder white families. This is nothing new.

And that intelligence bit did sound a little personal. It may not have been meant to be, but be a little more careful in the future.

@Bassil:
Gas Prices: The hippie-'Green' element is far to powerful for anyone to open drilling in ANWR or to allow many more refineries to be built. Even though these would have practically no impact on the eco-system. Hell, they won't even let us build more nuclear reactors, and they're the safest, cleanest energy we have.

Iraq: Hear hear. I've said from the beginning that we need to get the oil while we rebuild the country. That's just a matter of fairness. While we run the nation, we get the profits. When they want to take over, we give it to them and they can take the profits, but no 1/2 and 1/2.

Btw, you do seem to be somewhat above average intelligence to me, you actually use your brain. I am convinced that at least 40% of americans today only use their brains to keep their skulls from caving in. It's good to see we don't have any of them here, but I guess if you lack the initiative to think for yourself, you lack the initiative to join a board like this.

All in all, I think Bush has done a reasonable job. The Patriot act was way out there, but he's not the first to try to pull stuff like that. I think he's been what we needed for the past years, but it is about time for a change. We need a smooth talker again. I'll probably still vote republican, especially if Hillary runs.

As for democrats vs republicans, the democrats need to sit down and decide what they are. They've been trying to please all the minorities for so long that they don't really stand for anything. It's like choosing between republicans and a bog. If they decided to genuinely support the good of the people, and all the people, not just the PETA members, then they may actually get my vote.

 

The USA is in all sorts of debt because everyone is borrowing from Asians to buy consumer goods and houses. That's not really much to do with the President, other than the authority he wields over the Chairman of the Federal Reserve who have allowed the rampant explosion of credit over the last decade to go unchecked. It's more to do with people being happy to go up to their eyeballs in debt.

 

We actually had a balanced budget under Bill Clinton for a few years. So, let's at least be honest. And blame the American people for the poor job that its govenment has been doing? even those who were smart enough to vote against the current government? Sorry, that does not make a whole lot of sense.

He is at the head of the most corrupt parties in recent history, and he only looks good to you and a few others:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/06/01/poll_finds_reagan_clinton_most_popular_presidents/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/polls/main924485.shtml

[ June 08, 2006, 06:27: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

The people DO have to take some of the blame, as they are the ones doing all the borrowing. It's not the government who is buying all those DVD players and iPods and Xboxes and expensive houses on borrowed money. The government does need to take the blame for making it so easy.

 

How many dvd players and Ipods would it take to pay for the cost of the War in Iraq?

http://costofwar.com/index-public-education.html

 

Unless you mean "the people" as in all of the people in the United States including those in governmental postions, or something else that similarly includes the government, that's blatantly false. The government does borrow money; running a budget deficit year after year kind of forces that, you know.

And individuals' purchases of DVD players, IPods, X-Boxs, etc. do not magically transfer to the budget or the national debt. (Especially when those things are not exactly loan-inspiring; plasma TVs and other things that cost thousands of dollars rather than just hundreds would have been a better example.) Also, any consumer loans are typically made with US banks (less hassle ).

 

Of course the government is responsible, but the rest of the non-government people are not entirely blameless and to sit there and point ALL of the fingers at the government is a blinkered viewpoint.

[ June 08, 2006, 07:01: Message edited by: Harbourboy ]

 

The debt load of average Americans has absolutely nothing to do with our national deficit. The government is increasing its debt load every year because it collects less money in taxes than it actually spends. If the government ran a balanced budget it would stop going further into debt whether Americans are borrowing up to their eyballs or not.

Blaming the spending habits of the American people for it's governments lack of fiscal responsibility is like blaming John Cusak when Kevin Costner makes a bad movie or blaming the Enron debacle on their customers.

[ June 08, 2006, 10:51: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

I can't believe that not a single one of you Americans is prepared to take any responsibility at all for the national deficit. Amazing. American households are borrowing at higher levels than any other time in history and most are spending more than they earn. Who do you think you are borrowing from? Not other Americans, that's for sure. You borrow from the banks, who then borrow from Asia. If I were you, I'd stop acting all helpless as if the government is forcing you to spend all your money, and start dealing with the issues that you have some control over.

Government spending is certainly a big factor, but the only part that impacts the national debt is when that spending occurs overseas. The wealth of a nation is nothing to do with taxes because that is internal. Money moving from Americans to the government (in taxes) and then spent in America (for example, on roads or bridges) makes no difference to the debt that America owes to, say, China.

 

Even if Americans had no debt whatsoever we would have a deficit when the government taxes less than it spends. The solution isn't rocket science. Either raise taxes or lower expenditures. The national deficit will only be reduced by establishing and maintaining a balanced federal budget. The debt level (or lack thereof) of the average American has nothing to do with whether or not the government is balancing its budget.

Clinton did it with the Republicans fighting him tooth and nail......and when he did it the average American debt load (adjusted for inflation) wasn't much different than it is right now.

 

Oh come on now. I don't own an iPod or XBox, but I do own a DVD player. The national debt has very little to do with the American people buying home electronics. None of the items you listed there cost over $200.

As for houses, unless people are taking out their mortgages with foreign banks, I don't see how that's doing anything either. Sure, there are foreign investors in U.S. banks, but most of the major U.S. bank are majority owned domesticly. Regardless, even if China called in all it's debts it's not like I'd lose my house! And all those credit cards are issued by American banks too.

I do not think if we waved a magic wand and eliminated all personal debt that it would make the nation substantially richer or poorer. Besides, as the name implies, the "National Debt" is the debt run up by the government. It doesn't include things like mortgages, credit cards, and student loans.

EDIT: Sorry for rehashing a lot of what has already been said. I failed to notice there was a "Page 2" to this thread, and I didn't see all of the responses to HB's comments until after I posted. One more thing:

I seriously doubt the "most" part is true. Maybe the year you buy a house, but not most years, and not most Americans. The average salary in the U.S. is approximately $36,000. I doubt most people borrow an average of $36,000 per year. In fact, I know they don't because banks would never approve the loans. A bank may approve a $150,000 mortgage for someone making $36,000 per year, because they have 30 years to pay it off. However, a bank isn't going to approve a $150,000 for someone making $36,000 per year to buy a sports car, which has to be paid off in just a few years.

EDIT2: One more thing. Do you know what the biggest single item is on the national debt? It's money owed to the American people in the form of the Social Security Trust Fund and U.S. Savings Bonds. If what you say is true, and that transferring money within America doesn't make the country any richer or poorer (and I agree with that) then the biggest line item on the national debt won't impact us one way or the other.

[ June 08, 2006, 15:02: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

"Do not blame your politicians; they are merely a reflection of yourselves."
-K-PAX

 

Swiss banks, Swiss banks, what do they do in America? Oh, issuing consumer credits via credit cards. Prospering business. 48% interest rates jackpot. No usury laws in the USA. Thriving buisness. Many people don't know, but that's acutally the biggest part of Swiss banking in foreign countries.

US consumer credit spending is one of the most prospering parts of the banking business. Particularly for Swiss banks... or any other European bank.

And by the way, both of the two big Swiss banks exist primarily in the USA.

 

What are their names? My mortgage is through Bank of America (whihc I'm assuming is a majority owned U.S. bank), and my primary credit card is issued by Chase Bank.

 

It's irrelevant who OWNS the bank. It's who the bank is borrowing from to then lend to the American consumer. Given that American savings levels are at historically very low levels, where are the banks getting the money from to lend? They have to borrow offshore, primarily from Asia. 50 years ago, USA was one of the world's biggest creditors (i.e. everyone owed them money). Today, it is the other way around.

 

HB - Why would anyone in his right mind want to SAVE money these days? The banks actually charge you (rather than pay you interest) to leave your money with them. Most everyone invests in the stock market, or 401K type of fund, because banks don't want you to save anyting.

 

Chandos, the reasons for what is happening do not change the reality of the outcome. Let's hope those shares and funds work out for you.

 

That's the absolute truth. I keep $2000 in a savings account as an emergency fund, but the interest it gains is a pitiful 1.5% annually. It doesn't even keep up with inflation. In other words, by keeping my money in the bank for a year, it is actually worth less than when I initially put it in. On the other hand, I pay $96 out of every paycheck into a 401k fund. My wife pays an additional $35 every paycheck into her 401k fund. I don't remember what the interest on her investment has been recently, but my last quarter's report showed an increase of 18.56%. As Chandos said, I'd be nuts to put my money in a bank.

 

To clear something up, the national deficit is the negative value on the government budget, while the national debt is what is owed to foreign nations. And unless I'm greatly mistaken, only the deficit or surplus has any effect at all on the national debt as a figure. Bank loans don't even factor into it.

So why are we unwilling to foot the responsibility for the national debt? Because it's the government's debt and nothing else. Our stuff is separate. End of discussion.