Next, he chose immigration as the next years platform, and that failed. Remember, the republicans have control of both houses, and the presidency. Why can't he get anything done? Does his ineffectiveness change who you will vote for in 08?
2006-09-06 03:32:09 · 13 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
sacolungo, your attempts to divert my attention are not working. Your attempts to rewrite history are also falling on deaf ears. They may have been able to trick you, they won't trick me.
2006-09-06 03:54:48 · update #1
funny, I state facts, and everyone assumes I have a position, or belong to a party, etc...I can't believe how many people don't have answers, and also, don't want to acknowledge the truth! Now I know how Bush duped the US!
2006-09-06 03:58:43 · update #2
Because he's a "do-nothing-right" guy working with a "do-nothing" congress
2006-09-06 03:38:04 · answer #1 · answered by Franklin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
His first year platform was the tax cuts which he got through and caused a major problem in this country. His social security platform was full of holes and would have put the country another 2 trillion dollars into debt. SO of course no one is going to support that which is why it failed. Now as for immigration its because there are alot of idiots out there who want to give those pos's amnesty or work programs so that they can stay. They couldnt agree on anything. No it wil not change who I vote for because I look at the minute details not just their "big plan"
2006-09-06 12:58:27 · answer #2 · answered by trl_666 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Congress is ineffectual and anyone who pays any attention knows that to be true. The best interests of the country have taken a back seat to partisan politics (by both sides).
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme and it needs to be recognized as such and must be reformed (but then we have politicians pandering to an uninformed electorate).
Illegal immigration must be addressed immediately. As usual, Government is reactionary and has missed the boat yet again.
It is time that Congress and the President became proactive (now and forever more). Unfortuntely, it is always too little too late. We are headed down the road to fiscal ruin with just Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, yet Congress continues to postponse the inevitable and plays partisan politics. Amazing.
2006-09-06 11:19:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you remember correctly the Democrats came out screaming and yelling about any change to SS. Bush's' idea was actually quite sound. Personally I would love to privatize SS. Not only will you have more at retirement, if you were to die the money would go to your family instead of some stranger.By doing this , the Democrats, who are the one who have completely screwed up our SS, would no longer be able to use those funds. This idea is a proven idea-Check out Chile http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/10-30-99.html I think you will begin questioning the Democratic Party's agenda. The Democratic Party scared some of the people of this nation for their own gain.
2006-09-06 10:49:30 · answer #4 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course he got his tax cuts, as another answerer pointed out, but he spent a lot of time and money supporting privatized social security.
This is part of the Party's agenda to get your retirement funds into the stock market so corporate executives can take it. Just like 401Ks and Enron, and many other smaller-scale examples. It would ruin people's future... and not even the Republicans could support it, because the people still aren't stupid enough to sell out social security. Imagine your social security funds, which will possibly be your only hope to retire after 45+ years of working your *** off, being in a private investment account in the form of stocks which you do not control... you aren't a professional investor and don't even have quick access to sell off the stocks in an emergency... imagine how fast your money will disappear and turn into someone else's retirement fund after 10 years of college and 5 years of corporate crime... and they'll retire more comfortably than you, too
as for immigration, he wanted to lose. he wanted to be ineffectual because the only way illegal immigration is profitable for big business is if you don't solve it one way or another, neither by making them legal workers who need full pay nor by kicking them out and getting rid of your slave laborers.
2006-09-06 10:42:25 · answer #5 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I never thought his policies were of any use to the average American citizen anyway (just again to benefit big business). How many people have savings accounts in this country that they don't dip into? Not many...can we trust ourselves not to spend our Social Security funds before we retire? And then, what the hell is his solution to having a whole bunch of seniors who are living in poverty? As far as Immigration, his policies again favor big business interests and not the American public. Guest worker programs my ***, there are plenty of Americans willing to work if they are paid a livable wage! I will vote Democratic all the way in the next elections!
2006-09-06 10:40:09 · answer #6 · answered by CharlieB 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
One word Filibuster
2006-09-06 10:38:30 · answer #7 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're either delusional, or you've been spouting your foolish party's line for so long you can't distinguish fact from fiction !!
2006-09-06 10:45:28 · answer #8 · answered by bd5star 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you sound like a democrat, not a libertarian. your positions are opposite of the LP
2006-09-06 10:53:08 · answer #9 · answered by S H I R A Z 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no matter what he does, wether good or bad for this country, there will always be groups of people that hate him for his party, person, beliefs, etc.... Since he will not be able to run for president again in '08, yes, i will not be voting for him for president...
2006-09-06 10:36:23 · answer #10 · answered by shut up dummy 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋