The Impact of More Bush Policies

from JoeUser Forums


In the past I have concentrated the major policies on the Bush Administration. This Blog will document some lesser choices made by Bush and enacted into law by the GOP controlled Congress from 2001-2007.

Bush cut funding for the IRS which has REDUCED the number of agents at a time when we need to insure we collect all the taxes due under existing law to reduce the budget deficit.

Bush cut funding for Social Security staffing and the number of the staff has fallen at a time when the work load has begun to increase.

Bush has cut the staffing at the FDA and Product Safety Commission at a time when imports are skyrocketing and the need for these inspectors has never been greater. It is also in the face of several years of increased examples where dangerous products have been allowed to come into our country.

Bush has not requested the added staffing for border guards six years after 9/11.

Bush has cut funding for cancer research for the past three years.

Given what is needed I can not see any possible justification for ANY of the above actions by the Bush Administration. Congress allowed these totally improper actions to take place by blindly passing the Bush budgets year after year. In addition, the manpower for our military should have been increased starting before we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan which demanded MORE troops that Bush simply failed to request. Again Congress failed to act and went along with Bush and we are now faced with a very serious manpower shortage in both the Army and Marine Corps.
politics
10,656 views 39 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great job gene!  I will be sure not to vote for Bush in '08.  LOL.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Monday, November 05, 2007
“Great job gene! I will be sure not to vote for Bush in '08. ”


Better also look at the GOP incumbents in November 2008 who are just as responsible as Bush!

I notice you have not been able to come up with ANY coherent and rational justification for these choices!
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Better also look at the GOP incumbents in November 2008 who are just as responsible as Bush!

I notice you have not been able to come up with ANY coherent and rational justification for these choices!

You are obsessed with Bush, gene.  Nothing we tell you matters so why should anyone waste their time.  Why don't you concentrate on the next election instead of constantly complaining about a lame duck Presidnt who isn't staying in office much longer?

Why don't you start by telling us how democrats will pay for all their proposed social programs.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Monday, November 05, 2007

Better also look at the GOP incumbents in November 2008 who are just as responsible as Bush!

I notice you have not been able to come up with ANY coherent and rational justification for these choices!

You are obsessed with Bush, gene. Nothing we tell you matters so why should anyone waste their time. Why don't you concentrate on the next election instead of constantly complaining about a lame duck Presidnt who isn't staying in office much longer?

What does that have to do with who you support in 2008? I have been talking about the next election both Congress and for President!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have been talking about the next election both Congress and for President!

You mean your one-sided posts about the GOP?

 

 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top


In the past I have concentrated the major policies on the Bush Administration. This Blog will document some lesser choices made by Bush and enacted into law by the GOP controlled Congress from 2001-2007.

Bush cut funding for the IRS which has REDUCED the number of agents at a time when we need to insure we collect all the taxes due under existing law to reduce the budget deficit.

Bush cut funding for Social Security staffing and the number of the staff has fallen at a time when the work load has begun to increase.

Bush has cut the staffing at the FDA and Product Safety Commission at a time when imports are skyrocketing and the need for these inspectors has never been greater. It is also in the face of several years of increased examples where dangerous products have been allowed to come into our country.


Hmmm, for a guy who claims to have knowledge about business you sure do show yourslf to know very little if anything. My company has had to let go people, and what do the Depts who lose people have to do now that they are short handed? Ever head of working a little harder and picking up the slack? Do you honestly believe that people are not capable of doing more than they are currently doing when working in a fully staffed job?

It's sad to see that we don't expect people to work a little harding when times require it, that it's better to have twice as many people so everyone can work half as hard. Especially in a time where people barely work half as hard as they did 50 years ago with all the latest in technology and comforts that we have today.

It's even more ironic how this is not adding to the deficit yet it bothers Col. So if you cut back to save money, Col gets mad, if you waste more money without raising taxes, Col gets mad. I wonder if Col gets pleasure from anything these days?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Monday, November 05, 2007

I have been talking about the next election both Congress and for President!

You mean your one-sided posts about the GOP?

I have provided the results of the policies of Bush and the GOP. In addition, most of the GOP Presidential candidates are not talking about the change Americans want but to continue the same old GOP/Bush policies! There is no question the majority are not satisfied with the way the country is being run so who would anyone support candidates that offer “Stay the Course”?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no question the majority are not satisfied with the way the country is being run so who would anyone support candidates that offer “Stay the Course”?


Why would Americans suppport more useless social programs and more of a nanny state?

Many of the democrats acknowledged they won't pull out of Iraq immediately, including Hillary.


Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush has cut funding for cancer research for the past three years.


Bush cut funding for Social Security


Bush cut funding for the IRS




i thought you said that the congress controls the spending. so if these cuts took place then it was the congress that OKed it.


by the way 2007 congress was controlled by the demowhackheads.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Monday, November 05, 2007
“There is no question the majority are not satisfied with the way the country is being run so who would anyone support candidates that offer “Stay the Course”?


Why would Americans support more useless social programs and more of a nanny state?”

However they do want to insure Social Security is protected and do not support privatization which most of the GOP candidates support. They also want health care and I do not see that with the GOP candidates.

“Many of the democrats acknowledged they won't pull out of Iraq immediately, including Hillary.”

The difference is that the democrats believe we must set a time line and begin the process. That is what most Americans want. I do not hear that from the leading GOP candidates.

Americans also want a different trade policy-- One that keeps the jobs in this country. The GOP candidates would continue the current policy that has failed for over 13 years. Thus, on major issues the positions supported by the leading GOP candidates and what most Americans support are very different. The Republican candidates are too conservative and the majority of Voters ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES. The GOP does not seem to get that!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top


I thought you said that the congress controls the spending. So if these cuts took place then it was the congress that OKed it.

What has taken place for the first 6 years of Bush is that Congress Rubber Stamped what Bush included in the Budget. Congress in essence allowed Bush to set the spending by passing what ever he suggested! Bush now believes that he is the decider when it comes to the Budget. He needs to read, or have LAURA READ HIM, the Constitution.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
That doesn't make it Bush's fault - it makes it Congress's fault for rubber stamping.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

By the way 2007 congress was controlled by the demowhackheads.

The 2007 Budget was approved by the GOP Controlled Congress. All these cuts were proposed by Bush and Rubber Stamped by the GOP Controlled Congress. The first budget for the Congress controlled by the Democrats is the 2008 budget.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmmm, for a guy who claims to have knowledge about business you sure do show yourself to know very little if anything. My company has had to let go people, and what do the Depts who lose people have to do now that they are short handed? Ever head of working a little harder and picking up the slack? Do you honestly believe that people are not capable of doing more than they are currently doing when working in a fully staffed job?

It's sad to see that we don't expect people to work a little harding when times require it, that it's better to have twice as many people so everyone can work half as hard. Especially in a time where people barely work half as hard as they did 50 years ago with all the latest in technology and comforts that we have today.

It's even more ironic how this is not adding to the deficit yet it bothers Col. So if you cut back to save money, Col gets mad, if you waste more money without raising taxes, Col gets mad. I wonder if Col gets pleasure from anything these days. YES - Reading the stupidity you write!

Increased productivity is good but it only goes so far. It will not insure the border is protected. It will not provide the needed troops for all the deployments. In addition, the increase in the workload at the IRS, Product Safety and FDA has proven they need MORE not LESS staff. Only an IDIOT like you and Bush would ignore these needs!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

They also want health care and I do not see that with the GOP candidates.

So you want socialized healthcare?  The person who whines the most about budgets would have no problem with the federal government handling health care?  LOL.


It will not insure the border is protected.

And I suppose democrats who want illegals as a new voting class will?


Only an IDIOT like you and Bush would ignore these needs!

Is this your typical response to anyone who challenges your BS?

 

 

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
So you want socialized healthcare? The person who whines the most about budgets would have no problem with the federal government handling health care? .

I did not say that. I would like everyone to be covered and be able to afford coverage.

And I suppose democrats who want illegal’s as a new voting class will? The same way republicans want cheep labor for businesses.


Is this your typical response to anyone who challenges your BS? What I have said is NOT BS!!!!!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
The 2007 Budget was approved by the GOP Controlled Congress.


sorry stupid but the senate hasn't been controlled by anyone in what 10 years or more. it has been split with 51 49 vote more or less that whole time.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: danielost Posted: Monday, November 05, 2007
The 2007 Budget was approved by the GOP Controlled Congress.


sorry stupid but the senate hasn't been controlled by anyone in what 10 years or more. it has been split with 51 49 vote more or less that whole time.


I recall Cheney casting the deciding vote a number of times and every Bush Budget was passed by the GOP Controlled House and Senate. You are stupid and I feel sorry for someone that is far from reality as you.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

I did not say that. I would like everyone to be covered and be able to afford coverage.

And who is going to pay for it?  We don't need more social programs, we need to cut what we have already.  The federal government is not responsibile for an inviduals health care.

 

What I have said is NOT BS!!!!!

Of course it is.  You were getting hammered in the other thread, so you started another as usual.  Get a life and get over Bush. 

 

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I recall Cheney casting the deciding vote a number of times and every Bush Budget was passed by the GOP Controlled House and Senate. You are stupid and I feel sorry for someone that is far from reality as you.



it takes two/thirds vote to pass almost everything in the senate.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Monday, November 05, 2007


I did not say that. I would like everyone to be covered and be able to afford coverage.

And who is going to pay for it? We don't need more social programs; we need to cut what we have already. The federal government is not responsible for an inviduals health care.

This is the issue-- families with incomes from $21,000 to $50 or 60,000 can not afford a $7-8,000 premium for health insurance. These people NEED medical care and do qualify for Medicaid. The Bush/GOP answer is the HELL with them. I do not believe most Americans agree with that policy. HOW do you suggest these people and their children receive the health care the need?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: danielost Posted: Monday, November 05, 2007
I recall Cheney casting the deciding vote a number of times and every Bush Budget was passed by the GOP Controlled House and Senate. You are stupid and I feel sorry for someone that is far from reality as you.



“It takes two/thirds vote to pass almost everything in the senate.”

YOU BETTER GO BACK TO GRADE SCHOOL! It only takes51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. ONLY when the President veto's a Bill does it require 2/3 majority to override his veto. YOU ARE A STUPID PERSON!

A bill can be filibustered in the Senate and not allow it to come to a vote and that requires 60 votes to END a filibuster. I guess the Democrats during the first 6 years of the Bush Administration should have used this to prevent ANY bills from coming to a vote in the Senate. However when a bill does come to a vote it only takes 51 votes to pass it. That us why when the Senate was 50/50 the VP can cast the tie breaking vote and that is what Cheney has done!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is the issue-- families with incomes from $21,000 to $50 or 60,000 can not afford a $7-8,000 premium for health insurance.


You keep using a number that is not realistic for most people. 

HOW do you suggest these people and their children receive the health care the need?


Get a second job, supplement their income, cut expenses, etc.  How about not waiting for the government to solve their problem. 


I do not believe most Americans agree with that policy.


If "most" Americans want to provide coverage for others, then they need to be included in any tax increases to pay for it.


Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Tuesday, November 06, 2007
This is the issue-- families with incomes from $21,000 to $50 or 60,000 can not afford a $7-8,000 premium for health insurance.


“You keep using a number that is not realistic for most people.”

What numbers are not realistic? Health insurance ( Blue Cross) for single women in PA is $450/mo. Family Coverage is over $800 per month. You may be able to obtain health insurance for less but the deductibles and co-pays are very high which people at that income levels can not afford. The 47 Million with no health insurance are mostly in the income group I have used.

“If "most" Americans want to provide coverage for others, then they need to be included in any tax increases to pay for it.”

That just exchanges one problem for another. If a family in the income group of $21,000 $50-60,000 can not afford health insurance they can not afford higher taxes either. The tax increases MUST come from those that can afford it and from the people that got the big windfall from the Bush tax Cuts!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Increased productivity is good but it only goes so far. It will not insure the border is protected. It will not provide the needed troops for all the deployments. In addition, the increase in the workload at the IRS, Product Safety and FDA has proven they need MORE not LESS staff. Only an IDIOT like you and Bush would ignore these needs!


No Col, only an idiot like you would believe that the an increase in work means more people are needed. I'm sorry buddy but you know nothing about business and hard work. People have it way to easy in todays world. People don't work as hard as they think they do. There was a time when cars were built by hand, when contracts were made on typewriters, where houses were built with your bare hands. Now we have robots making cars and moving the heavy stuff for the workers, computers can create contracts in a snap or you can have one copy and print millions of it, houses now come prebuilt ready to put together like a puzzle. Computers have made peoples jobs easier, from experience people are way to laid back in their jobs. they could do more but know they don't have to so they won't. I should know, most of the jobs I have had I have lost due to working really hard in an environment were most employees were use to doing enough and did not like having a guy who did more work than them.