Given everything Mr. Bush has on his presidential plate, I, for one, do NOT envy this man one bit! And, furthermore, I feel he is doing his level best.
PS. I would build that wall as of yesterday!
2007-06-17 01:26:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
At this very moment in time, there is only 1 thing I would do: Be preparing to veto the amnesty bill.
I'm a Bush supporter. And frankly, I have become a much stauncher supporter since coming on this site, last September. The Bushhate is amazing. And not in a good way.
Energetic thinker, if the average American wants the same healthcare as Congress, they can run for office or get otherwise employed by the government.
2007-06-17 07:29:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Cut the size and cost of the federal government. Veto pork barrel spending. Eliminate cabinet departments that we can do without, such as the Department of Education. No one in that department teaches anything to anyone. The Department of Energy does not produce any energy. HUD's giveaway programs end up creating slum lords.
I would work to change the tax system to a universal sales tax, rather than an income tax.
I would work to pare down and eliminate social programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare.
I would keep the military strong. Fight wars without tying the hands of the military. Protect our borders. Get rid of illegal aliens.
There is much more, but I am tired of typing.
2007-06-17 07:44:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
May 25, 2007 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence filed a report with the President Pro Tempore concerning the pre-war intelligence assessments on post-war Iraq. It seems the committee came to the following conclusions about issues clearly raised by the intelligence community:
*
Democracy: Establishing a stable government would be a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge.
*
Terrorism: Al-Qaida would see an opportunity to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks during and after a US-Iraq war. The increase in terror would spike and decrease in 3 to 5 years and in this period the lines between Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would become blurred. Softer targets, such as US citizens overseas would become more inviting targets.
*
Domestic conflict: Iraq is a deeply divided society that would likely erupt in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it.
*
Influence of Iraq’s neighbors: Neighbor’s would jockey for influence in Iraq with activities ranging from rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure to fomenting strife among Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic groups. Iranian leaders would try to influence the shape of post-Hussein Iraq to preserve national security and demonstrate Iran is an important regional leader.
*
WMD: any action to eliminate Iraqi WMD would not cause other regional states to abandon their WMD programs or desire to develop such programs.
*
Security: the Iraqi government would have to walk a fine line between dismantling the worst aspects of Saddam’s police, security and intelligence forces and retaining the capability to enforce nationwide peace.
And there is more… much, much more. Since these intelligence assessments were conducted pre-war and were not classified it is information that was available to all members of the House and Senate when they voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq.
2007-06-17 12:04:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Listen to the people of america, the owners of the state. Tooth comb every word, every letter and every dot. Understand every nuance of the whole data. Grade it up and create a prioritised data base.
Start with:
1, creating an efficient small government
2, if iraq war is still on, bring our troops back within my third month in office
3, home security and immigration - seal our borders
4, foreign policy
5, education, scientific research and production
6, health care for all americans
7, trade and commerce - generation of wealth
8, national infrastructure - bring back american jobs
9, global warming
10, alternative source of energy
11, a unified america - one country one people.
While creating an efficient government, I would balance the balance sheet, create a tax regime that rewards hard work to individuals. I would reduce tax on wages earned on overtime or a second job. This would encourage more americans to work harder, spend less and save more. Corporates keeping their production within america would get a tax incentive and I would increase tax on any american corporate that has exported american jobs.
Pass a bill that would make it a felony to label any american in terms of their color, race, national origin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation and many other labels. All americans would be americans - period! We need to strength our national identity as labeling americans is weakening this cardinal part of our national heritage - being americans.
2007-06-17 08:16:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Leof 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Uphold the constitution for a change.
Stop military imperialism, in line with the founding ideals of the country.
Restore the separation of church and state.
Raise the minimum wage to a living wage (~$16/hr), and peg it to inflation for automatic annual increases.
Force trade partners (other countries) to maintain a similar minimum wage to be able to import to this country.
Greatly reduce the retirement and health benefits for Federal representatives and senators. They don't deserve to have that much better of a plan than does the average citizen.
2007-06-17 07:38:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by energeticthinker 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would appoint competent people to the offices under me not just a bunch of yes men/women. That's the reason so many things have gotten screwed up the last 6 years, he just put in people that would tell him how correct his ideas were/are..
2007-06-17 07:34:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by madjer21755 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Start to publicly recognize good points on all sides of the isle, use them to create effective policy. Current I'm right, they're wrong climate in politics is not productive for anyone.
2007-06-17 07:37:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by A Person 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would follow the example set by Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain.
2007-06-17 07:30:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋