Simple. Write your Senators and Congressmen and tell them we need new policies to balance the budget, fund Social Seurity, alter the trade policy, protect our borders for starters. Make it clear if they fail to change the ineffective Bush policies and begin to find solutions by 2006, those up for reelection are gone! Make it clear the same thing will take place in 2008 and thereafter. Congress has the power to set policy. The President can suggest policy and can even veto bills that he does not like. But Congress has the power to override the President if they choose! If they do not act then they are responsible and should be removed at their next reelection. Just ONE ELECTION that would remove members of Congress that do change the Bush policies is all it would take! And who are people going to elect? Democrats? Don't you get that democrats do not have any ideas of their own. Just the constant whining and obstructing.

This is true. Of all these problems listed.... I have seen and heard democrats deride GW's solutions but have as of yet seen them put forth their own solutions.

It is time for new solutions from either the Democrats or the moderate Republicans. What we can not continue is the existing Bush policies that are not working!

IslandDog.

I think Moderate Republicans should be elected. Those Republicans that believe in balanced Budgets and trade policies that create a level playing field. Republicans that will protect our borders and ports. Republicans that will fix Social Security without individual accounts.

Republicans that will fix Social Security withour individual accounts.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with individual investment accounts other than it won't fix the mess we have by themselves.

It is time for new solutions from either the Democrats or the moderate Republicans. What we can not continue is the existing Bush policies that are not working!

Is it a requirement that in every post you have to make the same quotes over and over? You think that the existing Bush policies are not working, that is just your opinion. Many people think they are and support them.

It is not opinion. A $ 2.5 Trillion increase in the National Debt is fact. The annual budget has gone from a surplus to a $675 Billion per year deficit. 3 million illegal aliens came across our border last year. The trade deficit is up 50% since Bush took office. These are not opinion they are the results of the last four years under Bush!

drmiler

The issue is to FIX Social Security. The individual accounts take trillions more from Social Security. Thus, why anyone interested in fixing Social Security would do something that makes it worse is not clear. Individual equity inventments above SS are GREAT.

Finally you admit that the real problems are in the purview of the Senate. Kudos, Col.

It is not opinion. A $ 2.5 Trillion increase in the National Debt is fact. The annual budget has gone from a surplus to a $675 Billion per year deficit. 3 million illegal aliens came across our border last year. The trade deficit is up 50% since Bush took office. These are not opinion they are the results of the last four years under Bush!

They are your opinions because you never factor in why things occur except that it's the fault of Bush.

The issue is that these things are not good for the long term health of our economy. It is the president's responsibility with sound fiscal and tax policies to correct things like this. His policies are adding to the proble. that is not opinion. If the tax rates were the same as before the Bush tax cuts, there would be hundreds of billions more comming into the treasury and the deficit would not be as large. If loop holes and more agressive collections were being required by Bush, there would be even more money to further lower if not eliminate the annual deficit.
the Why is only important to arrive at a solution. You use the WHY as an excuse. Results are what Bush tell us are important. Then lets look at results and when we do that, reasons WHY mean nothing- ONLY RESULTS COUNT!

The individual accounts take trillions more from Social Security

Sorry wrong answer. Please show proof of this because I can sure as hell show proof that your wrong once again.

The issue is that these things are not good for the long term health of our economy. It is the president's responsibility with sound fiscal and tax policies to correct things like this. His policies are adding to the proble. that is not opinion. If the tax rates were the same as before the Bush tax cuts, there would be hundreds of billions more comming into the treasury and the deficit would not be as large. If loop holes and more agressive collections were being required by Bush, there would be even more money to further lower if not eliminate the annual deficit. the Why is only important to arrive at a solution. You use the WHY as an excuse. Results are what Bush tell us are important. Then lets look at results and when we do that, reasons WHY mean nothing- ONLY RESULTS COUNT!

Then quit slaming Bush in everyone of your posts since the why means nothing.

The issue is that these things are not good for the long term health of our economy. It is the president's responsibility with sound fiscal and tax policies to correct things like this. His policies are adding to the proble. that is not opinion.

Once again, that is your opinion. There are people who support his policies and believe they are the right way to go. Just because you disagree doesn't make you right.

drmilet

If you divert trillions from Social Security taxes by creating individual accounts with part of the tax revenue, the date when the fund will begin going negative will be sooner. The basic issue of how to pay the benefits of the baby boomers is not in any way solved by creating individual accounts. That has been acknowledged by the Bush administration and the Social Security Officials. That is the proof. What needs to happen to solve the funding issue is reduce the benefits and/ or add to the Trust Fund so it can make the payments to the baby boomers. Individual accounts only adds to the funding needs and introduces the market value changes into a system that was designed to be certain as to the expected benefits. The place for individual equity accounts in addition to the Social Security benefits. The only real benefit is the ability to transfer any remaining balance to the next generation.

There is such a large amount of citizens who just can't grasp reality. Usually it takes the form of political ignorance. I think we're mostly adults here. We should be able to accept the murky reality behind the notion the US is the defender of democracy in the world. The US acts when it's beneficial to the US. The US is all for a politically free society, but only when it's in another country's sphere of influence. If the US really cared about Iraqi civilians, would they have not allowed water treatment facility components to get away from under the sanction blanket? If the US really cared about Iraqi civilians, would its military not try identify large crowds of Iraqis before they release missiles and bombs onto them (Fallujah war crime video)? If the US really cared about Iraqi civilians, would former SecofState Albright have said the US government thinks 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth the price(!) of santions? If the US really cared about Iraqi civilians, would Iraqi hospitals be considered legitimate targets for US bombs? For that matter, if the US really cared about it's own troops, would they not try do something to protect them from depleted uranium ammunition residues? If the US really cared about it's own troops, would they continue to mock Americans' intelligence by claiming there's no evidence that depleted uranium in munitions pose an environmental threat? There's lots of events which prove the US isn't in Iraq for the Iraqi's benefit.

Why can't we just round up the Sunni's, and intern them in a desert camp somewhere way out of range of civilization. Sure we would feed and water them some, but we would have to keep them interred for five years or more before releasing them back into Iraqi society, as by then they won't be a threat as they will be left behind. I believe this plan is still being considered, but is not likely to be implemented in light of the decrease in attacks.

This isn't about "political ignorance", it is about political hypocricy; blinding yourself to any reason and making a snap judgement based on hate. After months, I've come to the conclusion that RH and the Col are so filled with emotion about this that they are incapable of any moderation.

They'll believe any slur without question, and write off any positive fact without a glance. I've reached the point that I have to consider them the "Aeryks" of the political section and shake the dust from my feet. Offering retort for such senseless and meaningless hate is just as senseless.

BakerStreet

The truth is that I would be happy to support policies from Bush or others that solve the problems facing America. This morning is another front page article in the Business section about the danger of the record trade deficit. did not write this article but it points out that our economy, lower stock prices and higher interest rates are at risk. What is our policy to deal with this issue? Expand the SAME policy that has failed for the past 12 years and is creating bthe record trade deficit! That is what our president is proposing. HOW DOES THAT FIX THIS ISSUE?

You and others who blindly support Bush dismiss these issues as my attack on our leader. I did not write this article it was written by the AP.

We have no effective energy policy. The problem is that demand is out stripping supply. Why did we not attack the major factor increasing demand which is low mileage for SUV's and cars? Bush refused to address this most essential component in his energy propopsal. All he wanted to do in grant large tax cuts to mature oil companies that would have paid part of their oil exploration costs and improve their bottom line.

It is time you look at the actual issues not attack the person documenting the issues. Your attacks will not lower the national debt, secure the border, lower the trade deficit and move us closer to improving any of the major issues facing this country.

It is time you look at the actual issues not attack the person documenting the issues. Your attacks will not lower the national debt, secure the border, lower the trade deficit and move us closer to improving any of the major issues facing this country.

Col, neither will your incessant tirades against Bush and or his policies.

drmiler

I have made specific suggestions of policy changes that will deal with the issues. I do not only post what you call "Tirades" I have shown with actual data the problems and have made very specific suggestions to deal with the issues. A review of my Blogs will show that. All you and some others on joeuser do is blindly defend Bush no matter what the facts show! Supporting what Bush has done will not solve our problems as been shown by the fact most have gotten worse over the past 4 years following his policies!

"t is time you look at the actual issues not attack the person documenting the issues. Your attacks will not lower the national debt, secure the border, lower the trade deficit and move us closer to improving any of the major issues facing this country."

The problem, Col, is that you aren't "documenting issues", your just taking a bunch of perceived problems and dumping them in the lap of a single person amid litterally hundreds who are to blame. You're bias is transparent. You don't come in here and bash the Congress, who are the ones truly responsible for 99% of everything you whine about.

No, you blame the President, because you hate him, and apparently have nothing more to do. Other than "write your congressman" you've offered zilch in the way of solutions, and a constant stream of anti-Bush hate. You really think we should think that you are "issue" focused? Bullshit.

drmiler I have made specific suggestions of policy changes that will deal with the issues. I do not only post what you call "Tirades" I have shown with actual data the problems and have made very specific suggestions to deal with the issues. A review of my Blogs will show that. All you and some others on joeuser do is blindly defend Bush no matter what the facts show! Supporting what Bush has done will not solve our problems as been shown by the fact most have gotten worse over the past 4 years following his policies!

And a review of your blogs will also show that you have been proven wrong many times before by various people on JU, myself included. And you have yet to EVER admit to that.

Better look again

The president is the Chief Execuative officer and is responsible to suggest policy that deals with the issues that impact the United States. Bush has not only made thoes policy suggestions but Congress has, for the most part, passed them into law. When you see how well they have solved the issues at hand you see the problem. If the CEO of a company would have the fiscal results like Bush, he would not be the CEO. The deficit is a direct result of the policies Bush got enacted into law- Spending and tax policies. the trade deficit increase is because of China which Bush is added to the WTO. Bush is making the budget requests that fail to even ask for the resources needed to proptect our border even 3 plus years after 9/11. These are just three areas Bush is responsible for which his choices have failed to correct.

I have made specific suggestions of policy changes that will deal with the issues. I do not only post what you call "Tirades" I have shown with actual data the problems and have made very specific suggestions to deal with the issues. A review of my Blogs will show that. All you and some others on joeuser do is blindly defend Bush no matter what the facts show! Supporting what Bush has done will not solve our problems as been shown by the fact most have gotten worse over the past 4 years following his policies!

And your "data" and "facts" have been shown to be wrong. You still haven't admitted your mistakes.

"The president is the Chief Execuative officer and is responsible to suggest policy that deals with the issues that impact the United States. Bush has not only made thoes policy suggestions but Congress has, for the most part, passed them into law."

Because he held a gun to their heads? Has he threatened their families? Don't play smart and then play dumb. On the one hand you want us to believe that you have the brains to comprehend a lot of very esoteric economic forcasting, and on the other you want us to think you somehow don't know who does what in our government?

I challenged you to tell us what we can do about all your supposed gloom and doom, and the only thing you could put forth was to contact our congressmen. To me, that was the first truthful thing I have heard you say, and a minor break in what is otherwise a paranoid stream of anti-Bush hate.

I believe, devoutly, that you are smart enough to know that much of what you blame the President for isn't really in his power to fix, and wasn't his mess in the first place. You just do it because you know it will stick among those who DON'T know, and all the ones that just hate Bush like you and don't care whether their blame is fair or not.

BS- the data was directly from he U S Government web sites which I copied to my replies or from AP, Washington Post, Brookings Institute studies, OMB ( Projected deficit) and alike . Show me where the data is not correct! My data on trade, the deficit, lack of border funding and Social Security are 100% correct