GySgt said:The point, Einstein, is that until our government and a President publicly identified this, it did not matter who was screaming it.
AndrewC said:Bill Clinton identified the need for new sources of energy. He tried to craft policies to support this belief. Many in congress have pushed for a different energy policy. One that isn't so dependent on oil. Just because they failed to pass legislation does not diminish their contribution. It also puts them at the forefront of this issue, not Bush. Bush has not been providing leadership on energy. Hopefully this is about to change.
ShamMol said:Now, I was disturbed by the linking of calls for withdrawl with isolationism and anti-patriotism. I understand why he did it, but that doesn't make it right.
Many in congress have pushed for a different energy policy.
ShamMol said:That is great, GySgt, he did what he was supposed to do years ago before the Second Iraq War. That doesn't make it a great accomplishment, it means taht he is finally realizing that he has to redefine his presidency and this is the first step for him.
Now, I was disturbed by the linking of calls for withdrawl with isolationism and anti-patriotism. I understand why he did it, but that doesn't make it right.
GPS_Flex said:I liked the part where, when Bush mentioned that his Social Security initiative had been rejected, Hillary jumped up and down, dancing with glee in an “in your face” gesture and when she and the other Democrats stopped being so disrespectful and sat back down, he pointedly said we need to end the partisan politics on the issue and work together to fix it.
It really made her look like she takes more pride in being an obstructionist than actually solving problems. She looked pretty radical at that moment and I was almost embarrassed for her.
Paul said:Yes the Dems care about America. When something critical needs to be passed and he said it didn't get passed they cheered.
I wonder if Bush said something about the War in Iraq going bad, if the Left would stand up and clap for that...
Paul said:Yes the Dems care about America. When something critical needs to be passed and he said it didn't get passed they cheered.
I wonder if Bush said something about the War in Iraq going bad, if the Left would stand up and clap for that...
Engimo said:Because his Social Security privatization program was a terrible idea that would have ****ed over a whole lot of people and screwed with the system as a whole - they were right to clap for the dismissal of a bad policy.
Engimo said:Because his Social Security privatization program was a terrible idea that would have ****ed over a whole lot of people and screwed with the system as a whole - they were right to clap for the dismissal of a bad policy.
Paul said:Yes the Dems care about America. When something critical needs to be passed and he said it didn't get passed they cheered.
I wonder if Bush said something about the War in Iraq going bad, if the Left would stand up and clap for that...
Che said:What you seem to avoid taking into account is that the SS reform pack cuts benefits so that only the wealthy can retire nicely. The Dems had taken into account all the people that they before rejecting to pass a flawed SS reform act.
reaganburch said:Ok, well then, lets firstly stipulate that the Presidents SS Plan is bunk. Even if that's true, the Democrats just didn't clap, they jumped up for joy not for the dismissal of a bad policy, but to show up and embarrass the President and hence, disrespect the office of the President.
Secondly, what is the Democrat plan for the securing and fixing of Social Security? Do they have one? This certainly isn't a problem that has recently come to light, this has been a storm brewing for a long time that everyone has seen.
Engimo said:The job of the opposition party, traditionally, is not to necessarily provide alternatives to the majority party but rather to criticize the flaws in what the majority party is proposing. Yes, it would be nice if the Democrats would come out with a better Social Security reform proposition, but that does not make their criticism of Bush's plan any less legitimate. A bad policy is a bad policy, regardless of whether or not you have an alternative proposition.
oldreliable67 said:Sorry, would you mind explaining that a little more? I have no clue as to what you are referring.
reaganburch said:If the opposition party doesn't need to offer an alternative to something the majority party puts across, why then ask for compromise on something? Doesn't compromise mean, generally, meeting in the middle, giving & taking, something like that? If the Democrats don't have an alternative, how can they ask for compromise? There IS no middle in that case... There is the majority party view and then there is.... that's it...
Che said:my bad, I posted fast so I forgot a couple of words. I edited if you want to take a look.
basically what I'm trying to say is that the that the way Bush is trying to fix SS is by cutting benefits to a point where SS doesn't really help pay the cost of living for a senior citizen. If he raised taxes, then he'd be able to make SS the benificial program that it's supposed to be. He'd also be able to clear the deficit and pay for the war.
Navy Pride said:I think the Presidents idea to fix SS was being able to put a percentage of your SS in a private savings account and has nothing to do with cutting benefits
Engimo said:Compromise in coming up with new legislation, perhaps? That wasn't my point, though. I was just saying that the fact that the Democrats have yet to present their own Social Security reform package does not mean that they are not allowed to criticize the one that Bush is putting out. Saying "Well, unless you can come up with something better, shut up!" is counterproductive and silly.
Engimo said:The job of the opposition party, traditionally, is not to necessarily provide alternatives to the majority party but rather to criticize the flaws in what the majority party is proposing. Yes, it would be nice if the Democrats would come out with a better Social Security reform proposition, but that does not make their criticism of Bush's plan any less legitimate. A bad policy is a bad policy, regardless of whether or not you have an alternative proposition.
Navy Pride said:I think the Presidents idea to fix SS was being able to put a percentage of your SS in a private savings account and has nothing to do with cutting benefits...........I know if I was a young man I would jump at the chance for a private savings account...............Clinton said in 1998 that SS was broken and needed fixed.........Now because a Republican is saying the same thing all the dems are playing partinship politics andd are against it......what else is new?:roll:
Che said:many don't have the high paying jobs that are needed to retire based on a savings account. The plan was shot down because it didn't cater to all of America's senior citizens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?