1
   

Prioritized, Specified List of Your Bush Complaints.

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2004 11:28 am
Chiming in with Craven I think the tax cuts/deficit thing is as disastrous as his foreign policy. Slashing taxes, but avoiding an equivalent slash in spending (which would be electorally disastrous) by driving up the deficit instead - which will force a next generation to slash spending in catastrophic ways, to cover the cost of the tax cuts and the accumulative interest to go with it. Irresponsible and anti-social is what it is, but like Craven I suspect intent - "intentionally going for broke to win an argument about how much we should spend".

Thing is, cause I'm egoistic, it didnt come up in my list up there: after all, I dont live in the States, doesnt impact me directly. And in a way its a different kind of thing because, while Bush's militant foreign policy was something that was just dumped onto an unwitting electorate, this kind of thing Americans just bring upon themselves, by consistently voting in anyone who promises to slash taxes, no matter how irresponsibly.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2004 03:09 pm
Thank you for such thoughtful, focused replies.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2004 04:20 pm
Bush may have an interest in the Mid-East but he and others on his staff really have no clue how to handle it. They are experimenting with a process that just lacks coherent purpose -- it has no style. It may be pragmatic but it has little substance or really inspired purpose.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2004 05:09 pm
Compliments to Sofia on this thread btw. Good idea to kinda just focus all the Bush-raging and sit down people for a moment to just make a reasonable list of what exactly it is that bothers 'em so much. Yielded some interesting replies.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2004 05:19 pm
Falling off his bike on a path "slippery from rain" when there hadn't been any rain in over a week?
Yeah, right.
I'm just wondering how many of you are aware that the administartion has also led the fight, via Tommy Thompson, to avoid lowering the allowable lead level despite research that strongly suggests lead poisonong occurs in much lower doses than previously believed? The measure for tougher lead standards was recommended by the CDC's lead advisory committee, but, oh no, not gonna happen!
If you don't think it's a big deal, read up on lead poisoning. It's a horrible, yet avoidable, thing.
But then, as always, who wants to spend money on prevention when we could just pay off the ill effects somewhere down the road? That's how the Bush administartion thinks, and that's my biggest problem with the lot of them.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2004 04:29 pm
The Bush Administration has used government power to reward its special-interest supporters by appointing industry leaders as regulators and by dismantling public safeguards altogether.

Read Special Interest Takeover, a new report by CSS documenting a systematic attack on public health, safety, and environmental protections over the last four years. Who are these special interests, and just how much have they taken over?
http://www.sensiblesafeguards.org/sit.phtml
http://www.sensiblesafeguards.org/pdfs/finalbrochure.pdf

When science finds a serious health or environmental problem, there is frequently public pressure to respond through regulatory action, which the administration is loath to pursue.
To take one example from the report, the Bush Administration delayed a Clinton-era proposed rule on Listeria and eventually only issued the rule in a much-weakened form. While this was happening, the Department of Agriculture, led by administration officials with close ties to the
meat industry, ignored a federal inspector's repeated reports of food safety violations at a Pennsylvania Wampler Foods plant. In 2002,
Listeria-contaminated turkey meat from the plant killed eight, sickened more than 50, and caused miscarriages and stillbirths, prompting one of
the largest meat recalls in U.S. history.

The report concludes that, "Special interests have taken over our government from top to bottom, turning back years of progress on health,
safety and the environment. That this puts the public and our natural resources at significant risk seems to be of little concern to the Bush
administration. Rather, the administration appears to view government as an instrument to enrich its political allies."
Wish I could say I was surprised.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2004 07:39 pm
I am most disturbed by a unilateral policing action, a world-cop venture. The ramifications of this are tremendous, even if invasion would have been justifiable and I don't think the action was.

I am secondarily horrified by lack of interest in a world body, such as the UN, being arbitrator of conflict decisions, lack of enthusiasm for a world court, lack of enthusiasm for world efforts to curtail environmental destruction. This all follows from the taking-ourselves-as-Cop aspect in my complaint number one.

Third, I am disturbed by the mix of righteousness with defoliation of what remnants we have of actual efforts towards moral conduct in dealing with others.

Oh, four, I am dismayed by the general messing with the separation of church and state at the same time personal finances are also seeming to be mingled in decision making.

And five, I am nearly wild in anger about the immeasurable debt involved in our ventures as world cop, including the debt of lives of the occupied people and ourselves, and the destruction, plus the immense financial debit. This will surely close off those dreadful issues of the grabby needs of the US population - never mind health care, at this point I am talking about bridges and highways..

And, I see some of our ventures as world cop as creating some of the reasons we think we need to continue in such a role.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 08:31 am
They said it:

Quote:
If the Bush administration is now desperate in Iraq, it is not only because events have escaped its control, but also because truth has escaped its control. So many of the Bush administration's prospects for success, and not only in Iraq, have been premised on its manipulation of information. The White House's love of secrecy, its disagreeable mixture of paranoia and hauteur, is well-known; but in the case of the Iraq war, the cognitive autocracy of the administration has gone to strange, and immensely insulting, lengths. It has promoted cognitive dissonance into a domestic strategy. It wants the American people to know that a great enterprise is being conducted far away, but it does not want the American people to know very much about that enterprise.

The refusal of the White House to allow cameras at the arrival of the American war dead, so that the American people could actually have a glimpse of the flag-draped coffins on the bleak tarmac, is typical. When Ted Koppel decides to read the names of the war dead, he is denounced as unpatriotic, though a wiser administration would have agreed to bow its head, too, and join the country in honoring the heroism of those named. But this administration, even when it is right, is not wise. Its sense of its own perfection is incompatible with wisdom. And so no acknowledgment of the dark side of the struggle is made, no sacrifices are asked of the society, no alterations in energy policy or fiscal policy are broached in the name of the emergency. There is no emergency, because such a description of reality does not please Karl Rove. We are supposed to live as if the war that we are supposed to support is not taking place. The teaching of the administration is: The future of America hangs in the balance, so go shopping.

This policy of denial breaks new ground in the history of official cynicism in wartime. [..] But all these awful pictures have now broken the government's grip on what we know and what we feel. Suddenly the war is not only real, it is also vivid.


link
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 10:20 am
Most of you know that I think Bush is an honest and decent man as we have ever had in the presidency. I see his administration as less secretive than most of you do; but then I am one who thinks it's rather dumb to telegraph all policy and intentions in the face of a press who will print it however irresponsible that might be.

I was totally opposed to him making it easier for millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the country with impunity; however, some are slowly convincing me that may not have been that dumb a move after all.

I was/am totally opposed to the Medicare prescription bill that most seniors neither needed nor wanted. I would have preferred the emphasis being on litigation reform and making it less costly/less dangerous for pharmaceutical companies to do the research and get effective low cost drugs on the market, even if government grants helped with the costs.

I wish we had not been so quick to disband the Republican Guard in Iraq--most military leaders now think that was a big mistake.

I wish he would get really angry more.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 11:00 am
Thank you, foxfyre--

Feel free to post your Kudo List, as well.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 12:22 pm
I voted for Bush neglecting Kyoto and the entire environment. I do think that is more important than the war in Iraq. Climate changes can and will effect us all, and America being the biggest polluter, there should be a president in office who wants to do something about this, and change the world. And that is not George W. Bush I'm afraid.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 02:55 pm
I voted none of the above mostly because they were all of the above plus one more that overides them all. I hate his self righteous smirk that implies that he and ilk are morally better than anyone else and of course they (bush) can't do no wrong.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 07:20 pm
The smirk has one vote!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2004 07:47 pm
We need a kudos thread I think. Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 05:40 am
Sofia, I just noticed your other poll, yes they look uneven. You would think with the trouble it took to get them, they would be even. I never understood why anyone would think a man would want to fool around with plastic in the first place. But what do I know about it.

foxfrye, kudos for what?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 12:03:43