Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Bush loves his country and is sincere in his desire to do the right thing. I just think he's sincerely wrong.
Bush has swallowed the neocon ideal hook, line, and sinker, and any good fishermen will tell you what happens to even the sweetest fish when that happens.
The President is wrong on illegal aliens. Thats my biggest problem with him. I think just he listens way too much to his 'advisors' rather than the American people.
But its all politics. He is a politician first, President second, like everyone else.
Regarding Social Security: The "secret" Social Security Agreement between the US and Mexico has not been signed by President Bush. If and when he does sign it, it would have to be passed by the House ~ and they would have 60 days to approve or reject it. The US currently has 21 similar agreements in effect with other nations, which are intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. All of the agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S.
Are you saying that Mexico is an economy similar to the USA? Is it even close? Please explain your logic.For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under these agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits. The Agreement with Mexico would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage. It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing.
It's not better than nothing. It's a giveaway to foreigners illegally in the U.S. If you've kept up, you'd know that part of the plan is to allow Mexicans to claim benefits for years worked in the U.S. while "illegal"...which means, they had to have fra udulent (the word is censored for some reason here in its entirety) SSN numbers in order to even show in the system. Paid any attention to the ID theft issues? Also, It’s important to note that Congress, like the American people, had not seen this totalization agreement with Mexico made secretly...yes..secretly, by Bush in 2004. This decision to expand our single largest entitlement program was made with no input from the legislative branch of government. If the president signs it, Congress will have to affirmatively act to override him and in essence veto the agreement. This is the opposite of how it’s supposed to work. Maybe it wasn't a secret to you as inbetween working hours as you strove for a living, the President called you and informed you personally? Is that how it wasn't a secret to you, but to everyone else including the Congress? You're correct that he hasn't 'signed' the agreement into law, yet he did make the agreement with Fox.As for President Bush wanting to grant amnesty for illegals - you are flat out wrong! Here's he stand on that issue: From January 2004 - released from the White House.
Actually, what the president proposed is in fact amnesty, though under a screen with a lot of double-talk and distraction. You are certainly within your rights as an independent thinker to come to your own conclusions, but I think your reasoning and interpretation of both issues you vehemently protect to be lacking in logic and careful thought.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MoMark, while you may find it noble to pick apart the President's Administration, please do so with full and complete facts. While you would prefer that everyone follow you over the side of cliff just because you say it's the thing to do, there are some of us here would think independently and are able to do research in the spirit of full disclosure.
And there's more, but I work for a living and can't post more right now. But I will.
I'm glad you work for a living. Thanks for adding that in! That adds to your credibility immensely! You may have noticed that the posts leading up to yours were calmly and rationally thought out without personal attacks and dramatic exaggeration. Anyone can look up the issue/s and I stand by my post, although, in your favor, my timeframe for the Mexicans to claim social security benefits was off a few months. Also, the totalization agreements made with other nations, even in your own explanation which you copy/pasted, were made with countries on par with the American economy and meant to prevent double taxation. How this would apply to Mexico is beyond me though I'm sure when you stop working for the day, you may have an answer whatever its validity.
How about keeping the personal attacks down and concentrating on less name calling and more meat in the issues? Are you one of those people who truly believes that shouting down your debating opponent or someone who doesn't agree with you makes your point more solid?
Political reality stands on facts, or the obscuring of facts, and you are, in my view, loose in your conclusions and though you claim you research the issues... your conclusions don't appear to support that statement. But it makes a great debate line!
But I would certainly appreciate a civil rebuttal instead of a childish tantrum. It's just nicer for the general tone.
The Bush "administration" is and has been a mess from the get-go!
In regards to the war in Iraq. My conclusion is that it is the Bush administration's idea to "kill a few birds with one stone" with the war in Iraq. Secure (or stabilize) the region which basically means don't let other "powers that be" control or influence the oil trade and to draw enemy combatants (terrorists,extremists,Al Qaeda-ect) into Iraq from neighboring countries. U.S. military knows the territory quite well from Operation Desert Storm. (IMO anyways) I never did believe the weapons-of-mass-destruction theory.
I think Bush loves his country and is sincere in his desire to do the right thing. I just think he's sincerely wrong.
Bush has swallowed the neocon ideal hook, line, and sinker, and any good fishermen will tell you what happens to even the sweetest fish when that happens.
I am actually glad you said that. You are one of the first people to not call him evil or satan or some other atrocious name. I agree he is being led and not by us, it would be hard not to I think. I cannot even imagine the stress he is under. I dont know how presidents can live so long. I think the stress would kill me. Even if he does what everyone "thinks" is right ( doesnt mean they are), he will get NO recognition for it. I dont believe he has been wrong on all issues.
It's very frustrating when it come time for me to vote. There are issues I care about where I believe the Democrats are completely and utterly wrong. And there are other issues where I believe the Republicans are completely and utterly wrong.
The Bush Presidency has been a disaster for this country. Did he mean well? Yes, probably. But I don't think he was the best man for the job, and I think he surrounded himself with a lot of very dangerous people who gave him a lot of bad advice. I wish he had the guts to stand up and say, "You know, I was wrong about some things, and I'm going to do what I can to make it right." I might still disagree with him, but at least I could respect his efforts a bit more. But all I see from him is mistakes going unrepented followed by denials and evading of important questions. He needs to take responsibility for his errors and try to correct them. But "stay the course" seems to be his motto for more than just a failed war policy.
It's very frustrating when it come time for me to vote. There are issues I care about where I believe the Democrats are completely and utterly wrong. And there are other issues where I believe the Republicans are completely and utterly wrong.
The Bush Presidency has been a disaster for this country. Did he mean well? Yes, probably. But I don't think he was the best man for the job, and I think he surrounded himself with a lot of very dangerous people who gave him a lot of bad advice. I wish he had the guts to stand up and say, "You know, I was wrong about some things, and I'm going to do what I can to make it right." I might still disagree with him, but at least I could respect his efforts a bit more. But all I see from him is mistakes going unrepented followed by denials and evading of important questions. He needs to take responsibility for his errors and try to correct them. But "stay the course" seems to be his motto for more than just a failed war policy.
Can I ask who you thought would do a better job? And why? (Please dont say Kerry or Gore). He does need to admit he made mistakes, but wont help him in the polls!! And I am sure he knows this.
Can I ask who you thought would do a better job? And why? (Please dont say Kerry or Gore).
Kerry I disliked for many reasons. He would have been a bad President in other ways, but I don't know that he would have been any worse than Bush. (Is that possible?)
Gore. Again, not my ideal candidate, but in hindsight I have to admit I think he would have done a better job. I certainly think he would have handled 9/11 better. Say what you will about Gore -- and I could say a lot myself -- but he served his country in Vietnam while Bush was off getting a daddy deferment, and Bush Jr. couldn't even live up to that. Painting Bush as some sort of tough, good ol' boy warrior is just silly. His own military service was a disgrace. He bungled the US response to 9/11 in every way possible.
I certainly think our economy would be healthier in Gore's hands. Not only would his 9/11 response had been saner, he wouldn't have sanctioned widespread tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of the population.
Who would I like to be President? Barring a resurrection of Thomas Jefferson, I'd have to nominate Wendell Berry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nea1
He does need to admit he made mistakes, but wont help him in the polls!! And I am sure he knows this.
I disagree. I think most Americans can respect a guy who isn't afraid to admit he mistakes and tries to correct them. What most Americans cannot stand is a guy who won't own up to his mistakes. That there is durn right American. And do we really want leaders driven by opinion polls? Or by conviction and honesty?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And do we really want leaders driven by opinion polls? Or by conviction and honesty?