Does Bush tackle the difficult issues libs don't have the courage to face?

Question

Social security: Obviously a problem / Lib solution: bury head.

Foreign policy: World is scary / Lib solution: "what would France do? (nothing)"

Immigration: does giving an illegal alien free medical care and education on tax dollars make sense? Lib solution: Inaction followed by posture for party nomination.

Don C. I did not read your post. Clue in...be concise.

Answer 1

Agreed. Great point.

I like the social security point. I an going to laugh when that blows up in their face here in about 5-10 years. Us conservatives know what is happening and are taking care of our selves with our own retirement.

Answer 2

Yes, after he gets the bad press and bad poll numbers. He now has legislation to curb green house gases... You are un informed and un educated about Social Security. That trust fund is good for 10-20 years. Both sides have been stealing from that trust fund for the past 20 years. Your also confused about Immigration, Bush wants Amnesty for 23 million illegals, Democrats do not. The least you could do is get your facts before you jump on the Lib haters ban wagon..
BTW, the Republicans have long had a agenda of ending SS for all Americans, that has not changed and Bankruptcy could be the method they use.. We have a $9 trillion debt ran up by Republicans and Bush..

Answer 3

Social Security Bush wants gone. Is that tackling it? No it isn't
Foreign policy. War, War, War --Some foreign policy
Immigration policy...What policy?

The only thing this Administration has focused on is their little war in Iraq. These other issues have barely been given lip service. Bush has said a lot in his state of the union speeches but hasn't made one proposal to do something about those issues. Actions speak volumes words speak little.

Answer 4

Bush has done absolutely nothing about all three of those issues: No Social security reform...blowing sh*t up is not a foreign policy, and his immigration plan was crap. Have you been in a cave for the last six years...I try to support my party too, but let's be realistic.

Answer 5

If you think this question performs some sort of sweeping understanding of today's political environment in America and abroad, well, you might have to do a little more reading on the matter.

Answer 6

Dems don't have the courage to face

The real truth is
AFTER THIS PRESIDENT------DEMS WILL BE FIXING REPUBLICAN PROBLEMS AGAIN, AS THEY HAVE EVERYTIME A WARMONGER, PROFIT DRIVEN REPUBLICAN HAS HAD THE OFFICE


Social security Republicans have ripped of the fund so deeply starting with Reagan, it will never heal (read below)


Foreign Policy you make me laugh
George W Bush has set back the country 50 years
Thanks to him, we are the most hated nation in the world

Immigration this traitor is spearheading the amnesty bill

WAKE UP


What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."

Answer 7

The Democratic party has long played the "inclusive" card and claimed to be the party for the poor and minority. They want to see illegals get citizenship through amnesty so as to stuff the ballot box when they put up a faux black/hispanic canidate

Answer 8

Our political party system has been reduced to choosing between bad decisions and no decision.

Answer 9

"Tackling the difficult issues" means nothing if the methods are imbecilic.

Answer 10

No.

he was the cheerleader, not the tackler.

.