Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

what good has bush done

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • what good has bush done

    I was sitting in my living room watching espn when a new bush ad came on. It promoted the three things he continues to claim to have achieved during these four years.
    1. fix the educational systems of the US with the no child left behind act
    2. respond quickly and effectively to the attacks of 9/11 and continue to win the war on terror
    3. pass important tax cuts to help out working and middle class families and to speed up the economy

    but have any of these things truly happened?
    1. the no child left behind act has put a strong emphasis on improving test scores and teacher accountibility. but here in Michigan teachers in fourth grade now spend up to 30% of the year preparing for standardized tests. and that time has to come outve other lessons time. not very good

    2. bush attacked afghanistan, and he attacked well. but what about the 750some million dollars that were siphoned away from funds put in place by congress for use in afghanistan. could that money have been used to capture Bin Laden. is the war in afghanistan a sucess if there is little new infastructure and we did not nab Osama. We may have been direct in getting our well reserved revenge, but we did not achieve our primary goal of the war.

    3. how he can claim economic victory is just beyond me. the economy is starting to be pick up now, but it may have more to do with him not messing with it than everything else. also social security looks to be in some very big trouble.

    just some thoughts. I'm not anti GOP, but i cannot stand bush.
    Doesn't read Al Franken, can't watch Al Jazeera, will attack dumbasses. Anyone but Rumsfeld '04.

  • #2
    1. the no child left behind act has put a strong emphasis on improving test scores and teacher accountibility. but here in Michigan teachers in fourth grade now spend up to 30% of the year preparing for standardized tests. and that time has to come outve other lessons time. not very good

    2. bush attacked afghanistan, and he attacked well. but what about the 750some million dollars that were siphoned away from funds put in place by congress for use in afghanistan. could that money have been used to capture Bin Laden. is the war in afghanistan a sucess if there is little new infastructure and we did not nab Osama. We may have been direct in getting our well reserved revenge, but we did not achieve our primary goal of the war.

    3. how he can claim economic victory is just beyond me. the economy is starting to be pick up now, but it may have more to do with him not messing with it than everything else. also social security looks to be in some very big trouble.

    just some thoughts. I'm not anti GOP, but i cannot stand bush.
    1. The act in question does, indeed, hold teachers accountable for their students, and tries to ensure that little Johnny can read before 3rd Grade, or little Johnny STAYS in 3rd Grade, instead of passing him along without EVER learning how to read. I can't wait to see how Colorado's new "Pay for Performance" bill does. I think it's soon going to catch on!

    2. The war on terror was NEVER based solely on Afghanistan. There are a great deal more countries who need to be deal with. Afghanistan was the first step. Chances are we have indeed found Osama, as in he's dead. No one has any credible proof that he is alive. Besides, Afghanistan is, indeed, better off right now than they were under the Taliban. That is inarguable.

    3. Your response is typical of the uninformed. Presidents normally work on a 5-10 year plan. This is also a fact. The cool thing is that the current economic boom CAN be credited to George Bush and his policies! That would put the last 3 years of crappy economic times squarely on the shoulders of Slick Willie. I'm shocked that you could blame the economic problems on Bush, but fail to give him credit for the upturn in the economy? A blatant dig against Bush, that's for sure.


    Don't let your dislike of a person, however misguided, lead you to be swayed by the liberal left media. If they could, they would have you believe George Bush was responsible for the first WTC bombing and the USS Cole!

    Try reading-up on presidential economic planning and bipartisan comparisons between Republican and Democratic Presidents over the last 20 years. You may be surprised!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by CPangracs
      3. Your response is typical of the uninformed. Presidents normally work on a 5-10 year plan. This is also a fact. The cool thing is that the current economic boom CAN be credited to George Bush and his policies! That would put the last 3 years of crappy economic times squarely on the shoulders of Slick Willie. I'm shocked that you could blame the economic problems on Bush, but fail to give him credit for the upturn in the economy? A blatant dig against Bush, that's for sure.
      I'm shocked people actually believe that Presidents are capable of resolving economic problems. If this were true, the economy would always be in good condition no matter who was in control.

      In reality, Presidents have very limited, if any control over how the American economy moves. It depends on many factors, which are so complexed, no one individual can determine them. Officials can contribute to negative and positive economic statuses through creating domestic and foriegn stability, finding ways to encourage job growth, fiscal restraint, etc. However, these are really no guarantees, and are less relevant than politicians let on.

      Bush is a business, and likely knows he has little control over how the economy moves. That's probably why he has illustrated a serious disreguard for fiscal restraint.
      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Deltapooh
        I'm shocked people actually believe that Presidents are capable of resolving economic problems. If this were true, the economy would always be in good condition no matter who was in control.

        In reality, Presidents have very limited, if any control over how the American economy moves. It depends on many factors, which are so complexed, no one individual can determine them. Officials can contribute to negative and positive economic statuses through creating domestic and foriegn stability, finding ways to encourage job growth, fiscal restraint, etc. However, these are really no guarantees, and are less relevant than politicians let on.

        Bush is a business, and likely knows he has little control over how the economy moves. That's probably why he has illustrated a serious disreguard for fiscal restraint.
        I completelty disagree, obviously. Bush's tax cuts put a great deal of money back in my pocket, which I used to increase the value of my property. I'm sure many may have saved it or invested it, which also helps boost the economy by giving banks more capital to invest in their hometowns. Unfortunately, I'm sure a bit of that money also went into the pockets of crack and pot dealers, but the fact remains that I had more of MY money in MY pocket rather than in the pocket of some lowlife who doesn't work and doesn't PLAN on working. To what do you attribute the housing boom over the last year or so?

        Furthermore, a president's policies certainlt DO affect the economy but I do agree that other agents within an administration or on Wall Street can also influence where our economy goes. I believe our current oil prices has more to do with problems in South America than the Iraq occupation or the greed of OPEC, for the simple fact that we get only 20% of our oil from OPEC nations! Well, that and the greed of our own oil companies and the upcoming summer driving season, but that's another thread altogether!

        Headshot had a rather simplistic notion about how the economy works, and I decided to get on that level and show him how he was, IMO, incorrect. If you want to have an in-depth discussion on the fiscal impact of Presidential Policy v. Interest Rate-Setting or something to that effect, maybe we should start another thread?
        Last edited by CPangracs; 23 May 04, 09:22.

        Comment


        • #5
          The tax cuts were nice, too bad Bush didn't cut spending to go along with it. Out foreign policy I only half agree with, but not the place for that arguement. I would say that Bush has done a better job at foreign policy then Clinton, but not well enough for it to be a postive in my book. On education I cannot comment having no children and not being in the education system anymore. Now for the negitives how about expansion of Federal Powers, eroding of our rights, etc? I see more negitives in Bush then positives. Not that Kerry is any better....
          "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tim McBride
            The tax cuts were nice, too bad Bush didn't cut spending to go along with it. Out foreign policy I only half agree with, but not the place for that arguement. I would say that Bush has done a better job at foreign policy then Clinton, but not well enough for it to be a postive in my book. On education I cannot comment having no children and not being in the education system anymore. Now for the negitives how about expansion of Federal Powers, eroding of our rights, etc? I see more negitives in Bush then positives. Not that Kerry is any better....
            I say again,..."9/11". That was not the president's doing, but I guarantee you that the measures taken in the Patriot Act have gone far to prevent another terrorist incident here.

            The expansion of Federal Powers? How's that?

            As for education, the uproar is mainly from teachers who have been ineffective and don't give a damn about the hard-to-teach kids. Now they're being forced to actually accomplish something in the classroom.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CPangracs
              I say again,..."9/11".
              I have no issues with most of the foreign policy response to 9/11. Afghanistan was and is still a valid concern and a the correct action in response. The domestic response I comletly disagree with.

              That was not the president's doing, but I guarantee you that the measures taken in the Patriot Act have gone far to prevent another terrorist incident here.
              The expansion of Federal Powers? How's that?
              Lets see, the right to habeas corpus is being eroded(in some cases its not even there), personal privacy has been eroded(Fed.gov can now seize records under the guise of 'terrorism'). The Fed can now preform searches without your knowledge, in some cases warrants are not even needed if 'national security' is at risk.

              You just don't respond to a terror attack by removing or restricting the Freedom of Citizens.

              As for education, the uproar is mainly from teachers who have been ineffective and don't give a damn about the hard-to-teach kids. Now they're being forced to actually accomplish something in the classroom.
              Good, like I said not a topic I am heavily versed in.
              "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tim McBride
                I have no issues with most of the foreign policy response to 9/11. Afghanistan was and is still a valid concern and a the correct action in response. The domestic response I comletly disagree with.


                Lets see, the right to habeas corpus is being eroded(in some cases its not even there), personal privacy has been eroded(Fed.gov can now seize records under the guise of 'terrorism'). The Fed can now preform searches without your knowledge, in some cases warrants are not even needed if 'national security' is at risk.

                You just don't respond to a terror attack by removing or restricting the Freedom of Citizens.



                Good, like I said not a topic I am heavily versed in.
                Hmmm, so, you think the average citizen who is conducting business above-board and dealing with the right people have anything to worry about? Personally, I could care less if the US government wants to waste its time investigating me, I don't have anything to hide, as I follow the laws laid before me. The only people who dislike the Patriot Act are those who either do things that can be seen as illegal, or they have been indoctrinated into believing that the government is out to get them.

                Why haven't we seen any cases of people's civil rights being violated? Remember, someone who is NOT an American citizen does NOT automatically receive the rights guaranteed an Amaerican citizen just because he or she is in America, and even American citizens charged with terrorism or connected to terrorism have become an enemy of the state and SHOULD be considered persona non grata in terms of rights.

                They wanna play, they better learn to play for keeps and be prepared to reap what they sow.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by CPangracs
                  Hmmm, so, you think the average citizen who is conducting business above-board and dealing with the right people have anything to worry about? Personally, I could care less if the US government wants to waste its time investigating me, I don't have anything to hide, as I follow the laws laid before me. The only people who dislike the Patriot Act are those who either do things that can be seen as illegal, or they have been indoctrinated into believing that the government is out to get them.
                  That's outrageous. So now the new principle of our system is guilty until proven otherwise. I'm a hard-working American citizen who pays taxes, vote, and follow the law. More importantly, I am an American who believes privacy is a right too many people have fought for to allow it to be compromised by fear.

                  I could care less if Uncle Sam investigates me. However, I'm not going to get into the mindset that proving my innocence is a way to preverse liberty. Terrorism has been a problem for America since our beginning. Compromising all our system in the hopes of stopping what truly can't be stopped is no better than giving Bin Laden our Constitution so he can use it the next time he takes a crap.
                  "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Deltapooh
                    That's outrageous. So now the new principle of our system is guilty until proven otherwise. I'm a hard-working American citizen who pays taxes, vote, and follow the law. More importantly, I am an American who believes privacy is a right too many people have fought for to allow it to be compromised by fear.

                    I could care less if Uncle Sam investigates me. However, I'm not going to get into the mindset that proving my innocence is a way to preverse liberty. Terrorism has been a problem for America since our beginning. Compromising all our system in the hopes of stopping what truly can't be stopped is no better than giving Bin Laden our Constitution so he can use it the next time he takes a crap.
                    Please, give an example of what you are describing. You are falling into the trap. "THE SKY IS FALLING!", yet there is no proof that any citizen's right to privacy HAS been infringed upon since the Patriot Act was instituted.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CPangracs
                      Please, give an example of what you are describing. You are falling into the trap. "THE SKY IS FALLING!", yet there is no proof that any citizen's right to privacy HAS been infringed upon since the Patriot Act was instituted.
                      That might be. However, you don't need to be arrested to expose the potential for abuse, which is the chief concern of those who oppose the Patroit Act.

                      http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cyberc...manual2002.pdf
                      http://www.cdt.org/security/010911response.shtml (All around good site that doesn't really advocate abolishing the Patroit Act, just emplimenting safeguards)
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by CPangracs
                        Please, give an example of what you are describing.
                        Yaser Hamdi
                        Jose Padilla

                        Both are US citizens being denied the right to habeas corpus. One was captured overseas. The ovther was arrested right here in the US.

                        So yes the Government is dening a fundemental Right that has been recognized since the Magna Carta.

                        And further more, the rights outlined in the Consitution are not GIVEN to us by it(or given by the government), the are NATURAL Rights, that cannot be given or taken. We do not have the right to act like some dictator just becuase someone is not a US Citizen.
                        "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The only effect of "no child gets left behind" is that talented and even medium kids get a worse education now.

                          Long-term that is very bad for the economy, as other countries continue to push talent. This will accelerate trends like the IT outsourcing one where America lost its interlectual superiority over countries like India.
                          Last edited by Redwolf; 23 May 04, 20:28.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CPangracs
                            Please, give an example of what you are describing. You are falling into the trap. "THE SKY IS FALLING!", yet there is no proof that any citizen's right to privacy HAS been infringed upon since the Patriot Act was instituted.

                            As for privacy specificly check out
                            "Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX) program"

                            The database includes info on people wiht NO criminal hisotry.
                            "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CPangracs
                              Please, give an example of what you are describing. You are falling into the trap. "THE SKY IS FALLING!", yet there is no proof that any citizen's right to privacy HAS been infringed upon since the Patriot Act was instituted.
                              I live in Dearborn, Michigan, home to a very large (i think the largest outside of the middle east) population of arabs. And a whole lot of people have been detained for long periods of time without a reason, many of them just because they attended a mosque that had members with terrorist ties.
                              Doesn't read Al Franken, can't watch Al Jazeera, will attack dumbasses. Anyone but Rumsfeld '04.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X