Bush does nothing about Trade Deficit

"Why would anyone propose to expand a policy that has failed to work for over 12 years?" your quote.

- beats me. why??!

Only Bush could answer that question.

So, other than protectionist policies that do nothing but hurt consumers, what would have him do? Also, since the Constitution tasks Congress (not the president) with international trade and treaties, why aren't you asking your state's Senators and Representatives this question? Activism and dissent are great, but let's at least target it at those with the primary responsibility of taking care of the issue.

First, the Free trade extension to China was at the insistance of Bush which the Congress passed. Bush is now pushing for Central America. Under the law , Bush has the responsibility to administer its provisions including provisions when countries like China fail to follow the requirements. The issue is that these agreements are NOT FREE TRADE and are not producing a level playing field. The size of the deficit and the loss of jobs is destroying entire industries. When something harming the people of the United States, why would our President not take action to adopt a policy that helped the U S? To further expand a failed policy does not help Americans?

You know, I read a brief article about this in the Business section of my local rag this morning and said to myself, "Betcha Gene'll be all over it at JU when I log on." I love it when I don't disappoint myself.

Cheers,
Daiwa

You know, I read a brief article about this on Col Gene's blog and said to myself "Betcha Daiwa adds nothing but pithy, snotty little comments, because this is like the 50th example Col. Gene has given of how bad a president Bush is, yet Daiwa and his fellow FoxZombies have not once provided a compelling, reality-based argument in favour of Bush. It must really suck being a Bush supporter, getting pwned on a daily basis in the blogsphere, armed with nothing but vitriol, obfuscation, and a six dollar mullet haircut." I love it when I don't disappoint myself

David St. Hubbins

Bush has the responsibility to administer its provisions including provisions when countries like China fail to follow the requirements.

In other words, no you don't intend on doing anything more than Bush Bashing over this (or any other topic). Just a guess though.

I'm starting to wonder if the anti Bush side thinks anything is Congress' responsibility. Basically all you expect from them is to sit around waiting for word from the White House.

Too often Congress just follows along with Bush. I do not make up these issues, thay are the results of the policies we are following. If you Bushies think what I am saying is anti Bush it may be because the Bush policies are anti U S interests. How the trade deficit or national deficit and job loss are good things for Americans beats me.

Too often Congress just follows along with Bush. I do not make up these issues, thay are the results of the policies we are following.

Members of Congress do not have to just sit and wait for policies from the White House. Each and every member has the ability to write bills for whatever they feel is important. If you feel that sealing our borders is so important, why are you not leaning on your state's Senators and House members about it?

If you Bushies think what I am saying is anti Bush it may be because the Bush policies are anti U S interests.

Believe it or not, I disagree with Prs. Bush's policy on immigration also, but I also see that members of Congress (who have more contitutional authority to create legislation concerning it) are the ones we should be calling on the carpet.

Seperation of powers is really important, and too often I see people who seem to want to heap everything on the President, simply because his butt is the one filling the big chair in the oval office.

no...if Bush started writing laws and passing them....then the dems (oh, wait, sorry...moderate republicans...sorry Col...) would be throwing a tantrum about Bush overstepping his bounds....

Face it....no matter what Bush does or doesn't do, the dems (damn...there i go again....moderate republicans...sorry again, Col) will hate it, and bash it, and him.

When Congress has not acted on Bush proposals in the past he then tries to go arround Congress and take it to the people. Social Security is a good example. Whenever anyone does not support Bush you are a Bush basher. The Republicans almost always vote 100% with the general ideas ob Bush. I agree we need separation of power and I believe that no one party should control Congress and the White House. Moderate Republicans, independents and Democrats do not agree with many of the Bush/GOP policies. Bush got 51% of the vote not because of his policies but because of and gay marriage and abortion. If George Bush had taken his stand on the budget cuts and Social Security before the November election, he would never have been reelected. If the Democrats had selected a better candidate, Bush would retired at the ranch in Texas today.

When Congress has not acted on Bush proposals in the past he then tries to go arround Congress and take it to the people.

That is merely a tactic of the seperation of powers, it has nothing to do with whether or not Congress acts independently, or sits around waiting for word from the White House.

Whenever anyone does not support Bush you are a Bush basher.

I already said I don't support Prs. Bush in a few things, so now you're trying to call me a Bush Basher? Spare me!! You keep saying you're not a Bush Basher, but your entire broken record schick is "Bush Truth", which basically means "Bush is a liar". Well sir, since you call me a Bush Basher, and I'm not one, does that make you a liar?

Sorry, but your rhetoric speaks for itself.

I do mean to call you or anyone else a Bush basher. The facts are what they are. If you believe a the Bush outcome is not good , that does not mean you hate Bush you are just pointing out the results of his policies.

I don't think you hate Bush, but you do fit any fair description of a "Bush Basher". I mean, the main gist of my blog is to satire "Personally Tragedy, Disaster, War and Other Things that Just Plain Suck", but anyone who reads my articles can see that I don't feel compelled to limit myself to just satire. On the other hand, your blog IS a series of articles on a variety of issues, but all with one goal in mind. If that goal is not to "Bash Bush" I am definitely missing something.

I thought Prs. Clinton was a liar, an embarrassment, an abuser of women and a hypocrite for all the military officers that were dishonorably discharged for doing exactly what Clinton did. Where were their names when he was burning the midnight oil signing pardons. That being said, he did start Americorps, some of his bombing missions actually did accomplish something, and the guy was a Rhoads Scholar. In other words, as reprehensible as I think he is, there are things he did I support, and can respect.

Somehow, I doubt you could do the same for Prs. Bush. Even if you could within yourself, I doubt you would include words of support in your blog. That's cool though (to paraphrase myself from Terpfan's rant against you), Sure, you are pretty much a 'one trick pony' (credit to Gideon), and 'sound like a broken record', but hey, being your blog; it's your pony to ride."

Too often Congress just follows along with Bush

Gene, come on. There is simply no basis for this comment, other than your subjective opinion. The Congress has only been populated heavily in his favor since January and it's hardly a runaway train - his own party seems lukewarm to more than a couple of his proprosals. I'm not sure who you are insulting, Bush or Congress, but you're insulting.

Cheers,
Daiwa

What about the WTO /China, the Iraq War, precscription drugs (that was to cost 400 Billion and is now up to 750 Billion) with no money to pay for it, $300 Billion for the Iraq war that was to cost 60-80 Billion and the three tax cuts. What do you call those things?

Para Ted 2K

George W. Bush is someone with almost no accomplishments except being the son of a man who was successful and had powerful associates. George W. in his youth used booze and drugs. He was a poor student, used his fathers pull to put him ahead of others to get into the Natuional Guard so he could stay out of Vietnam and then did not fulfill his obligations in the guard and again used pull to get out early with an honorable discharge. He got into Harvard Grad School with a "c" average- not without help! He formed two companies with investments from his fathers contacts, ran them into the ground and then was bailed out with a part ownership in the Rangers that did make money but not because of Bush. If you were to remove the influence of his family contacts you have a person that accomplished almost nothing of value and then became Governor of Texas and then President. N0, I do not have a lot of respect for him because as a person he accomplished almost nothing without the benefit of privilege . He is as different from his father as night and day!

Gene -

I applaud your candor (not that we haven't heard all this before). That's the kind of disclosure that informs your readers exactly where you're coming from. It would be fruitless to point out the errors (notice, I didn't call them "lies") in your list of Bush's alleged sins, since your mind is as tightly closed as a new inmate's asshole, but I give you credit for laying your prejudice out there for all to see.

Cheers,
Daiwa

DSH -

George W. Bush is someone with almost no accomplishments except being the son of a man who was successful and had powerful associates.

Need I remind you that, while your own accomplishments are something with which you are proud (and I consider great myself), to the pacifist and anti corporation set, you're whole life has been wasted?

Double posts are a waste too!! ;~D

ParaTed 2K

First I am not a pacifist. I agree military force is required to protect our nation. I spent four years on active duty during Vietnam ( Unlike George W.) and 26 years in the Reserve (and I did not fail to attend drills or take physicals). So please do not paint me with that title. The difference is that so far as I am concerned, the lives wasted by death and injury to remove Saddam was not worth the price since we were not threatened by him.

also I am not anti-corporation I am pro-American. Thanks to the objectives of some corporations of only looking at maximizing profits is working to the detriment of the American worker. I understand the principle of reducing costs, increasing profitability and competition. If we continue the loss of American jobs that enable people to earned a living wage the end result is going to disaster for the United States and is people. We can not ignore the fact that whole industries have left this country. Industries that we created and we cannot ignore the the trade deficit. There must be a balance struck between profitability and responsibility to ensure that the people in this country may continue to enjoy economic prosperity which is as central to maintaining our freedom.



Daiwa

I spent some time looking into the background George W. Bush. I did not know a lot about him and wanted to understand what experience and background he brought to the job of President of the United States. Although I'm sure any Bush supporter is not happy with what I have pointed out about his lack of accomplishments, unless all of the information published about his earlier years is a lie George Bush did not accomplished very much. To put it another way, if George W. Bush were George Smith and his father were just an average Joe working day-to-day to support his family, lets take a look at how different the life of George W. Bush would be. First it is possible he might have been charged with drug use. It is very doubtful he would have in admitted to the Yale University based on his academic performance. He would never have been admitted to the Harvard graduate school without the assistance of someone. He would not have gone ahead of 150 other individuals for a slot in the Texas Air National Guard without help. It is likely that he would have faced some sort of administrative discipline for not taking his physical and attending the drills that he was required to attend. He would not have been granted an early release from his initial commitment to the guard and probably not received an honorable but rather an administrative discharge because he failed to obey regulations that result in him in the grounded. No one would have invested millions of dollars into corporations for an individual who had no experience or background in the oil business without the links that the Bush family had with weatthy investors ( some of which were wealthy oilman from Arab countries) that provided the money for George Bush's two ill-fated corporations. He would not have been bailed out after those two failures and been granted a share in the Texas Rangers and later named manager which is the source of a lot of Mr. Bush's wealth. He would not been elected governor of Texas without the political and financial support of the Bush family associates. And finally he would not have been able to run for president without the help from the business and political contacts of the Bush Family!.

Why then the adulation of George W. Bush? I would like someone to show me what of substance he accomplished without the assistance or privilege that he experienced from help of George Herbert Walker Bush and his associates? The only success that I have seen in his background was as Governor of Texas to forge some compromise with the Texas Legislature. However he would never have been Governor of Texas had it not been for his father and contacts the Bush family.

First I am not a pacifist. I agree military force is required to protect our nation. I spent four years on active duty during Vietnam ( Unlike George W.) and 26 years in the Reserve (and I did not fail to attend drills or take physicals). So please do not paint me with that title. The difference is that so far as I am concerned, the lives wasted by death and injury to remove Saddam was not worth the price since we were not threatened by him.

Col Gene. I did not call you a pacifist or anti corporation. I said that many who are pacifist and anti corporation would look at what you and I consider great accomplishements in your life and consider them as much a waste of a life as you consider Prs. Bush's life.

I understand ParaTed2K

As long as the US economy is growing faster in terms of raw dollars than its major trading partners, the US trade deficit will increase.

If an American has $10 to spend while the European only has say $5 to spend and the Chinese citizen only $1 to spend, what do you think is  going to happen?