August 1999 congress agree to pay back national debt down starting at 3.4 trillion dollars and national debt will be one trillion by 2009. March 2006 Government facing a shutdown, congress agree to raise debt ceiling to 9 trillion dollars. National debt currently at 8.4 trillion dollars. Is Bush a good leader?
2006-06-16 04:40:28 · 10 answers · asked by soccergarysw 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The national debt is now at our GDP= to our economy. WOW
2006-06-16 06:55:13 · update #1
really in with Sadaam, what does that mean? Sadaam didn't attack United States, Saudi Arabian citizens did. Stay on the subject of the money Bush has spent without any ideas to repay. Who will pay for social security and medicare, are you brain damaged?
2006-06-16 07:02:22 · update #2
Bush (President) is doing a good job--for the super-rich corporate interests. The little people are only here, to provide wealth to the super-greedy, some of whom own the private Federal Reserve. The tax-collecting division of the Fed, the IRS, shakes down the little people, to provide tax payments (not even covering the interest) that go toward whittling down the National Debt. (Your taxes do not pay for government.)
2006-06-16 04:56:23 · answer #1 · answered by mrearly2 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is always easy for Congress to promise what they can not deliver, since we all blame the new President. The one they knew would be a Republican at that time. Debt for country takes years to show up in the National Debt amounts - Bush did not create this debt. His debt or lack thereof will show up in the next President's term. The real clue to your question was " Congress agreed" - why do you blame President Bush for congressional vote. Separation of Executive & Legislative branches come to mind AGAIN!
2006-06-16 04:49:34 · answer #2 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is an unemployment rate of 4.5% GOOD, Do we think France and Russia are allies or do we know they were really in with Saddaam Do you see the Un as a bunch of crooks and its amazing Saddamm is in a cage and Bush is in his Pallace telling the world And dont count on the deficiet, Clinton didnt have one because he didnt do anything about the levees, the war declared by binladdenin 98 and let the cia and militaty end up barely going
2006-06-16 05:04:39 · answer #3 · answered by mansker1965 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rollingstone Magazine the magazine of the hip young has called G. W. Bush, the worst president in the history of the United States. That he allows the Oil companies to increase prices before Holidays and then allows them to compete afterward makes me think he may have the Rollingstone title all to himself, not the avidly stupids. That is, 'good leader' and 'Bush' do not belong in the same sentence.
2006-06-16 04:53:37 · answer #4 · answered by Marcus R. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No,he's terrible for the economy. Syphoning funds to special-interest companies (halliburton, EXXON, etc) are not good for the economy.
2006-06-16 04:50:31 · answer #5 · answered by Kookoo Bananas 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is just a big peice of crap. Some people say that he was a good running mate...the only thing he's good at running is his mouth
2006-06-16 04:45:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wars cost alot of money. Our country was attacked by terrorist we went to war to stop terrorism. Costs money
2006-06-16 04:44:37 · answer #7 · answered by Dagfinn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Somebody will blame it all on Clinton.
2006-06-16 04:42:49 · answer #8 · answered by Spencer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he looks for the best interest of his oil buddies and neocons
2006-06-16 04:53:36 · answer #9 · answered by mel18 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, he sucks. I sure as hell didn't vote for him.
2006-06-16 04:44:16 · answer #10 · answered by freyas_kin28 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋