COL Gene COL Gene

Bush Stonewalling Senate Request for Bolton Information

▼

Bush Stonewalling Senate Request for Bolton Information

from JoeUser Forums




The Senate, as part of its advise and consent function, has requested certain information from the State Department concerning various incidents surrounding John Bolton who is the president’s nominee for UN ambassador. The State Department and the Bush administration have not provided some of the information requested by the Senate because they claim the Senate does not need the information requested because it is not relevant.

It is not up to the White House or the State Department to tell the Senate what is relevant to fulfill their constitutional responsibility of advise and consent. If the Senate does not receive all the information it has requested concerning John Bolton, it should NOT vote on his nomination. To allow the State Department or the White House to circumscribe the process of the Senate in advise and consent process would be a violation of the separation of powers.
politics
16,809 views 55 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once again we're supposed to believe that all Congress should be doing is sitting around helplessly waiting for word from the White House (or Executive Branch in general). Don't Senators have staffs? Isn't part of the job of those staffs to collect information the Senator may need to help them make decisions? If you were my CO, and you asked me about records that you told me to get from Finance (for example); would you accept it if I said, "Sir, I've called over there 10 times in the last week, they just aren't getting off their butts and bringing the records here".. What would you say to me? Would it be something like, "Then get off your butt Sergeant, and go get them yourself!"

All we have heard for so long is how The House or Senate can't do X, because of the White House... The information provided by the White House was insufficient, or wrong, or whatever... Isn't it about time the overpaid staff members of the Senate actually did their jobs? Isn't about time we quit accepting lame excuses from our elected officials? Isn't it about time we reminded them that they aren't employed by the White House, and they aren't dependent on the White House for anything?

Yes, there is a Seperation of Powers, one that makes it so no branch of the government is dependent on any other to get their part of the job of running the country done.

Please Colgene, enough with the "If the White House would do something, then the Congess could really get busy" crap!!!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have a great idea. The Senate should subpoena the information from the White House and if the president failes to produce the information they should impeach the president of the United States for failure to obey a subpoena from Congress.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have a great idea. The Senate should subpoena the information from the White House and if the president failes to produce the information they should impeach the president of the United States for failure to obey a subpoena from Congress.


I have a better idea, if any Senator wants information about a nominee, why don't they use their own staff to go out and dig up the information... Hmmmmm, it's almost like that is part of what a Senate staff is for... imagine!!!

I guess it's easier to just sit on their fat butts, making excuses that know-nothing retired Col's will swallow, and even defend.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

You are truly out of touch and have no idea of what you are talking about. If you are the type of person who supports Bush, it is easy to understand why we are not solving our problems!


I do not know what your problem with me is. But I'm not the only one on this site that feels this way.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
How would a senator go into the White House to obtain the information? If the White House does not release the information, do not act on the appointment-- VERY SIMPLE. It would be interisting to know WHY the White House does not release the information!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
.... a blind loyalty to policies that are not helping the vast majority of the American people.


Actualy, it's a blind loyalty to a person, that being dubya and to an ideolgoy, that being the right of conservative, because these neocons are NOT conservatives. This kind of blind loyalty, otherwise known as jingoism, is what is really blinding Congress itself, and the people who voted these neocons in, that being bush and his henchmen, for fear of voting for oh no! a democrat.

Face it, COL. drmiler hates you. He will post any drivel to illustrate how much he hates you, even if it makes his stupidity shine.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you know what rock he climbed out from under?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do you know what rock he climbed out from under?


Yeah I do. The "same" one you did.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

NOT EVEN CLOSE!


Nice try. Now try again!
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your lack of basic understanding is clear by your replies abour Social Security.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your lack of basic understanding is clear by your replies abour Social Security.


You know what? Your right. I'm sick to death of arguing with your ignorant liberal stupidity! Your the one with a basic lack of understanding. You who can't even do a simple math problem correctly. What is 4% of $1550? It sure ain't $1000 like you claim it to be.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
How would a senator go into the White House to obtain the information? If the White House does not release the information, do not act on the appointment-- VERY SIMPLE. It would be interisting to know WHY the White House does not release the information!


Hmmm, I didn't know the nomination of Bolton was about Bush (or the White House, I thought it was about whether Bolton is fit to serve as UN Embassador. Do you really expect me to believe that anything worth knowing about Bolton is safely secured in the White House? C'mon ColGene, even your argument reveal your bias. The Senate has one Constitutional Mandate here. It has nothing to do with the Prs, character assassination of Bolton, or anything else like that. The Senate's one mandate is to vote on the President's nominee. Plain and simple. If they want to know about Bolton's past, they need to do a little fact finding. Instead, like you, they would rather play childish games than uphold the Constitution.

Why has nothing to do with it, only that Senate committees and political parties have no business using UNCONSITUTIONAL means to prevent the Senate from acting on their Constitutional Mandate.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmilet

You are stupid. it is NOT 4% of 1550 it is 4% of the 25,000 Bush is saying you put 4% times your salary inti the individial accounts. If all you put into tye account was $62 per year in 30 your you would have $ 2,000 plus any earnings.

ParaTed2K

In order for the senators to vote on approvong or not they need information about Bolton. The White House will not provide the information and the Senate should NOT vote until they get the information they askef for from The Bush Administration!
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmilet

You are stupid. it is NOT 4% of 1550 it is 4% of the 25,000 Bush is saying you put 4% times your salary into the individial accounts.


No how, NO WAY! Go read his proposal yet again. And this time leave off the spin. Go here to rea the "real" story.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK Drmiler read this story:

Bush's plan for Social Security
The president offers some key details on reforms he is pushing, but still leaves some big questions.
March 4, 2005: 4:39 PM EST
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money senior writer
SPECIAL REPORT
Social Security »»

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – In the State of the Union address Wednesday evening, President Bush answered some important questions about his plans for Social Security reform and the creation of individual investment accounts. Many issues remain unclear, however.

Here are some of the topics Bush addressed and some further details from a fact sheet on his proposal.

Would reform affect everyone? The president has said all along that any reform would not affect the benefits of current and near retirees. On Wednesday, he specified that benefits of anyone age 55 and older will not be changed.

Who could open an investment account? The accounts are voluntary. But participation would be phased in over three years according to age. In the first year -- 2009 -- workers born from 1950 to 1965 could open accounts. In the second year, workers born from 1950 to 1978 could open accounts. In the third year, anyone born after 1950 could opt for an account.

How much payroll tax would be diverted to individual investment accounts? President Bush indicated that eventually, workers would be permitted to invest up to a third of the 12.4 percent payroll tax that they and their employers pay on their wages. (Workers pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay the other 6.2 percent.)

Annual contributions would be capped at $1,000 in 2009 and thereafter rise slightly more than $100 per year.

How would we pay for the costs of creating individual investments accounts? Payroll taxes are used to pay current retirees, so diverting a portion of them creates a shortfall in the ability to pay full benefits.

The transition costs of diverting a third of payroll taxes to individual investment accounts have been estimated at around $2 trillion over the next 10 years. That assumes, though, that a third of payroll tax is diverted for each of the 10 years.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK Drmiler read this story:

Bush's plan for Social Security
The president offers some key details on reforms he is pushing, but still leaves some big questions.
March 4, 2005: 4:39 PM EST
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money senior writer
SPECIAL REPORT
Social Security »»

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – In the State of the Union address Wednesday evening, President Bush answered some important questions about his plans for Social Security reform and the creation of individual investment accounts. Many issues remain unclear, however.

Here are some of the topics Bush addressed and some further details from a fact sheet on his proposal.

Would reform affect everyone? The president has said all along that any reform would not affect the benefits of current and near retirees. On Wednesday, he specified that benefits of anyone age 55 and older will not be changed.

Who could open an investment account? The accounts are voluntary. But participation would be phased in over three years according to age. In the first year -- 2009 -- workers born from 1950 to 1965 could open accounts. In the second year, workers born from 1950 to 1978 could open accounts. In the third year, anyone born after 1950 could opt for an account.

How much payroll tax would be diverted to individual investment accounts? President Bush indicated that eventually, workers would be permitted to invest up to a third of the 12.4 percent payroll tax that they and their employers pay on their wages. (Workers pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay the other 6.2 percent.)

Annual contributions would be capped at $1,000 in 2009 and thereafter rise slightly more than $100 per year.

How would we pay for the costs of creating individual investments accounts? Payroll taxes are used to pay current retirees, so diverting a portion of them creates a shortfall in the ability to pay full benefits.

The transition costs of diverting a third of payroll taxes to individual investment accounts have been estimated at around $2 trillion over the next 10 years. That assumes, though, that a third of payroll tax is diverted for each of the 10 years.


Ok nothing! You really shouldn't give ammo to the enemy in the middle of a battle!


You are stupid. it is NOT 4% of 1550 it is 4% of the 25,000 Bush is saying you put 4% times your salary inti the individial accounts


This is what YOU posted! Show me WHERE this is in the Bush plan! WRONG again!
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler "How much payroll tax would be diverted to individual accounts? President Bush indicated that eventually, workers would be permitted to invest A THIRD OF THE 12.4 percent payroll tax that they and their employers pay on wages" This is from the article I posted above dated march 4, 2005!
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler "How much payroll tax would be diverted to individual accounts? President Bush indicated that eventually, workers would be permitted to invest A THIRD OF THE 12.4 percent payroll tax that they and their employers pay on wages" This is from the article I posted above dated march 4, 2005!


That STILL does NOT jibe with your earlier comment now does it?

You are stupid. it is NOT 4% of 1550 it is 4% of the 25,000 Bush is saying you put 4% times your salary inti the individial accounts


This is what YOU posted! Show me WHERE this is in the Bush plan! WRONG again!


I've been all over GW's site on SS and NOWHERE on the site is ANYTHING even close to the garbage you've been fed!

Also if what your saying is true that most americans do not like GW's plan....Then just where the hell did this come from?


AMERICANS FAVOR PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS (PRAS)



ABC/Washington Post Poll Finds 56% Of Americans Support "Plan In Which People Who Chose To Could Invest Some Of Their Social Security Contributions In The Stock Market." (ABC/Washington Post Poll, 1,001 Adults Nationwide, Conducted 3/10-3/13, Margin Of Error +/- 3%)



68% Of Adults Aged 18 To 29 Support Allowing Workers To Invest Some Of Their Social Security Contributions, As Well As 60% Of Those Aged 40 To 49 And Even A Majority (53%) Of Workers Near Retirement (Ages 50 To 64). (ABC/Washington Post Poll, 1,001 Adults Nationwide, Conducted 3/10-3/13, Margin Of Error +/- 3%)

Quinnipiac Poll Showed 59% Of Americans Age 18-40 Support "Allowing Individuals To Invest A Portion Of Their Social Security Taxes In The Stock Market." (Quinnipiac University Poll: "Social Security Generation Gap," 1,534 Registered Voters, Conducted 3/2-3/7, Margin Of Error +/- 2.5%)



The Tarrance Group and Public Opinion Strategies Poll Finds "The Written Description Of The Personal Retirement Account Proposal Creates Majority Support Among All Age Groups ..." (Dave Sackett and Glen Bolger, Memo To National Republican Congressional Committee, 3/8/05)



David Winston Memo To Republican Leaders: "Once The PRA Concept Is Explained With Even Minimal Detail ... 54% [Find] Bush's PRA's A Convincing Reason To Change Social Security ..." (David Winston, Memo To Republican Leaders, 3/3/05)


Or this from the Washington Post:

But progressive Democrats should also admit the truth about Republican proposals: They're a heck of a lot better than leaving Social Security's deficit to get worse. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, is talking about reasonable benefit cuts coupled with extra taxation and modest personal accounts. This is not a plan to burn FDR in effigy. After all, well-designed personal accounts benefit poor Americans, not the rich. The rich already own stocks, and having a new way of holding shares should logically lead them to switch other savings out of equities and into bonds, so that their overall risk profile stays constant. It is the bottom half of households that stand to gain from the opportunity (not the obligation) to own equities as part of their retirement savings. Democrats who say that any personal accounts are a first step to dismantling the system should recall their own fury at equivalent Republican claims -- that Hillarycare, for example, promised "socialized medicine."
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

I told you 1/3 of the SS taxes would go into the individual accounts just as the article above said. Also the Bush plan CUTS Social Security benefits betweem 20-40% depending on you income. If we do NOTHING benefits will be cut 25%. HOW IS THE BUSH PLAN A SOLUTION? Under either option benefits are cut 25 to 30%. Bush has NO solution only cuts in benefits and Trillions more cost to create the individual accounts.
Reply #46 from PolMach Forums Top
Dr.Miller, Col G, why don't you both go your seperate ways and fantascise in both of your ignorances....
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have no fantasies and I have stated analysis of people such as the chief actuary for the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office who have flatly stated what Bush is suggesting does not fix social security. It is the opinion of these experts who have looked at the proposals and have concluded that what Bush is suggesting does not fix Social Security. Bush is suggesting changes that will cut future benefits. If we do noting to Social Security benefits will be cut slightly last if we do what Bush is suggesting. drmiler has no idea what he is talking about and is not arguing with me but with the experts that have provided their evaluation of the Bush plan.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler has no idea what he is talking about and is not arguing with me but with the experts that have provided their evaluation of the Bush plan.


That's where your goofed in the head! I'm arguing *your* experts with my experts! You just aren't liking the outcome.
Reply #49 from PolMach Forums Top
It is the opinion of these experts who have looked at the proposals and have concluded that what Bush is suggesting does not fix Social Security.


--you have this and yet you argue this:

If we do noting to Social Security benefits will be cut slightly last if we do what Bush is suggesting. drmiler has no idea what he is talking about and is not arguing with me but with the experts that have provided their evaluation of the Bush plan.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is telling us that Social Security is in trouble because it will not be able to pay all the promised retirement in the future (starting in 2042). Social Security has said that he is correct and there will need to be a 25% CUT in benefits if we do NOTHING starting in 2042.

Bush proposed to fix the problem by cutting benefits an average of 30% through a change in the way the COLA is calculated.

Now if the problem is the inability of Social Sceurity to continue paying the full benefits, how does the Bush cutting benefits 30% fix a 25% cut if we do NOTHING? This analysis comes diredctly from the Chief Actuary of Social Security and the Congressional budget Office.