Posted on 06/30/2007 2:24:57 PM PDT by hardback
What was so good in this bill that you liked, the enforcement or the amnesty?
All us old Allen Drury "Advise and Consent" fans, that's who!
“SEE YOU AT THE SIGNING” may go up there with “READ MY LIPS”
I don't remember it either, but I do seem to recall some intramural squabbles for power during the late Reagan era. Hardly a matter of any consequence to the base though.
When Reagan signed the 1983 compromise on SS, which was running a deficit, i.e., it was paying out more than it was taking in, the Dems controlled the House 269-166. There was absolutely no possibility of changing the system. The Dems controlled the House by overwhelming majorities the entire Reagan administration.
Reagan's election in 1980 helped the Reps gain control over the Senate. In the 96th Congress the Dems held a 58-41 advantage with 1 independent. In the 106th Congress (1999-2001] the Reps had a 55-45 advantage in the Senate and lost that advantage in the 107th Congress when it went to 50-50 and then Dem with the Jeffords defection. In the 109th Congress Bush had a 55-44-1 advantage in the Senate and a 231-202 advantage in the House. No Rep President has enjoyed such majorities in both Houses at the same time in almost 80 years. Bush squandered it away and the GOP will probably have to wait another 80 years for it to happen again, if ever and if it even survives.
I voted for Bush twice, contributed a significant amount of money to the RNC, worked as a GOP poll watcher, and was a volunteer at the 2005 Inaugural Ball. I have never been more disappointed with a Rep President. The amnesty bill was the last straw. It took the Reps 40 years to win control of the House. Bush has been a disaster for the GOP and the conservative movement.
Your just stupid! This is a waste of time writing to you. What the HELL have you assh-—s accomplished?
I agree that a bad bill is worse than no bill at all.
What we have now in terms of a national illegal immigration plan is terrible/tragic/treasonous. We will be back to that status quo of sneaking, payments under the table, forged documents, and tax benefits stolen without payment. There will be absolutely no progress is enforcing existing laws, building the already funded 700+ miles of fence, and in the deportation of illegals. Their number will grow at the rate of 1.5 million a year. Anchor babies will become instant citizens.
The just-defeated bill would have to have been beyond catastrophic to have been worse than that.
It was.
When it wasn’t busy rewarding illegal status it was busy punishing legal status. It would have totally undercut middle class aspirations for decent jobs with decent wages. It would have allowed criminals and terrorists in scot free because of miniscule amounts of time allowed to process 12 million invaders.
Get Real, you talk like a Democrat who is still holding on to his hanging chads, get over .. move on....Bush won two Presidential Elections back to back and he is going to finish with honor, unlike President Clinton who was impeached for sexual harrassment, obstruction of justice , and for lying under oath, not to mention letting al quaeda build up while having BJ's in the oval office.
“This should go in the plus column.”
Only if you failed basic economics.
It raised the price of steel here and punished businesses and consumers who made and bought items made of steel. It was a stupid vote buying ploy.
For example:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/07/12/the_pretense_of_knowledge
Another example of the seen/unseen problem is the Bush administration’s 2002 steel tariffs. The tariffs’ seen beneficiaries were steel industry executives, stockholders and the approximately 1,700 steelworker jobs saved. According to the Consuming Industries Trade Action Association, higher steel prices, resulting from the tariffs, caused thousands of job losses in the steel-using industries. Since companies that used steel had to pay higher prices, they became less competitive domestically and internationally.
And this
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/stupidity.html
Both of these scenarios are applicable to the Bush administration’s 30 percent steel tariffs imposed last year. Those tariffs caused the domestic price for some steel products, such as hot-rolled steel, to rise as much as 40 percent. The clear beneficiaries of the Bush steel tariffs were steel industry executives, stockholders and the approximately 1,700 steelworker jobs that were saved. Tariff policy beneficiaries are always visible but its victims are mostly invisible. Politicians love this. The reason is simple. The beneficiaries know for whom to cast their ballots and the victims don’t know whom to blame for their calamity.
According to a study by the Institute for International Economics, saving those 1,700 jobs in the steel industry cost American consumers $800,000 in the form of higher prices for each steelworker job saved. That’s just the monetary side of the picture. According to a study commissioned by the Consuming Industries Trade Action Association, higher steel prices have caused at least 4,500 job losses in no fewer than 16 states - over 19,000 jobs in California, 16,000 in Texas and 10,000 in Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. In other words, industries that use steel are forced to pay higher prices and the products they produce become less competitive and they must lay off workers.
The average hourly wage of steelworkers ranges between $15 and $20 plus fringe benefits; so we might be talking about an annual wage package averaging $50,000 to $55,000. Here’s my question to you: how much sense does it make for American consumers to have to pay $800,000 in higher prices to save a $50 to $55 thousand-dollar-a-year job? It’d make better economic sense for Congress to pass an Aid to Dependent Steelworkers Act whereby we’d tax ourselves so as to give each of those 1,700 steelworkers, whose jobs were saved, $100,000 year so they might take off and live in a nice beachfront condo in Florida or Bermuda. While less costly to Americans than President Bush’s steel tariffs, it has no political future. The handout would make the protectionist policies apparent and hence repulsive to most Americans.
Plus column? Only if you were a steel worker or company. For everyone else, it was a big minus.
“Your just stupid!”
LOL. Always funny when someone calls someone “stupid” while using the wrong form of “You’re”
D- or D if I’m feeling generous would be my domestic grade for him as well. His “new tone” policy has been a disaster, and even after that, there are still some who think being “moderate” is the key to success.
Guilty as charged!
Abortion & Traditional Values
1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. [good]
5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals [upheld whose ban? How can this be legal if abortion is legal?].
6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. [not much $$]
7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman [and he pushed these issues just as hard as illegal immgrant amnesty, right?].
8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents. [why is this a fed gov issue?]
9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools [dangerous to mind or body?].
Budget, Taxes & Economy
1. Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history. [good! but but left AMT in place]
2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax [his support plus a Republican congress for 6 years = nada].
13. Fight Europe’s ban on importing biotech crops from the United States. [any Pres who wants Midwest votes will do this]
15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home. [Why even cite this??? What does it buy after the many layers of adminstration? Three votes?]
16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled. [see above - nice sentiment, but eh]
19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans. [scary gov tinkering in the cost of education = cost out of control like it is now]
Character & Conduct as President
2. Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse. [well, and meant it]
3. Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days: [true]
Education & Employment Training
1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act [should have abolished the Dept of Ed, not made this tar-pit of a bill].
2. Announced “Jobs for the 21st Century,” a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education. [sounds nice, but big deal]
3. Is working to provide vouchers [but not too hard, or else he’d cheese off all the buddies he made with the No Dollar Left Behind Act]
7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems [like teachers need $$ to design tests? sad waste of $$]
Environment & Energy
2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc. [Boondoggle deluxe!! Run from this one!!! Seriously, why would a Republican brag about something so “feel good” yet so pie in the sky? Why not post about the number of new refineries or nuclear plants he helped get authorized? Oh wait...]
3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives. [again, why brag about something so miniscule?]
7. Killed Clinton’s CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California. [good]
8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species. [good - I like voluntary but encouraged conservation - Conservatives can like conservation, too]
Defense & Foreign Policy
1. Executing two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom. [these weren’t wars of liberation, though that is a good side-effect]
3. Leader by leader and member by member, al Qaida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. [good - I hope to hear of improved intelligence, too]
4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD’s without bribes or bloodshed. [very good - has never gotten enough press]
7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses. [good]
9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian “Roadmap to Peace,” along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU. [not worth bragging about]
Globalization & Internationalism
2. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court. [good]
Government Reform
[this whole section needs just two numbers: fed employee headcount reduced and budget cut - elsewise it is blarney]
Health
* New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. [the only good news in this section from W]
Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration
1. Under President Bush’s leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security. [Gen. Pershing begs to differ]
8. Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America’s ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. [why choose an acronym so much like “Sieve?” Also know as the “punish the honest” system.]
9. [all the immigration reform bullet points from 9 to 13 sound like so much techno-blarney with a huge government price tag)].
Judiciary & Tort Reform
3. Is nominating strong, conservative judges to the judiciary [good job for the most part].
So be it. If he couldn't get private accounts he at least shouldn't have RAISED FICA taxes on all American's...thus taking a larger % of every american's income only to further the most wealth stealing scheme known to man. It's called veto it, if it called for an increase in FICA / Soc Sec.
Reagan's election in 1980 helped the Reps gain control over the Senate. In the 96th Congress the Dems held a 58-41 advantage with 1 independent. In the 106th Congress (1999-2001] the Reps had a 55-45 advantage in the Senate and lost that advantage in the 107th Congress when it went to 50-50 and then Dem with the Jeffords defection. In the 109th Congress Bush had a 55-44-1 advantage in the Senate and a 231-202 advantage in the House. No Rep President has enjoyed such majorities in both Houses at the same time in almost 80 years.
Lets have some honest context to these #s and R's and D's. Reality is the Souther Dem's of the late 70's and 80's were MORE conservative then those of the RHINO's today. That is a fact.
Therefore just because someone has a D or R next to their name is meaningless in terms of their political motives / agendas when looking at different time periods (of what an R POTUS had to work with). Again, you have to stay honest in terms of what the realities on the ground in DC were.
Zell Miller type Southern D's for example are more conservative then 20 of our "R" Senators of today.
It was a segment of Zell Miller type D's that R. Reagan had to deal with...Not the Pelosi's of today.
Furthermore the FACTs are R. Reagan had a majority in the Senate of 53Rs - 46Ds (from 81-83)... From 83-85, he had a BIGGER majority 54Rs - 46Ds....From 85-87 he STILL had the majority 53Rs - 47Ds....and it wasn't until 87-89 that he LOST it...55Ds - 45Rs...
Hmmm? Do you blame R. Reagan for LOSING the Senate?? Do you? He LOST us the Senate with his policies. It was his fault just like it was GWB fault in 06...correct? (but wait, in 06 the GOP ran AWAY from GWB and they lost...How did the GOP run in 86?? With Reagan?....and they lost the Senate still?).
R. Reagan passed full amnesty for all in 86 when he held a solid (very solid) majority in the US Senate? Why didn't he just have the REP Senate block such measures? How couldn't he stop a simple cloture vote?
No, you want to hold GWB to one standard...while holding R.R. to a much lower one. The reality is both men were great leaders, great POUTUS and d*mn fine CINCs.
Since when do we consider these two idiots to be true Americans?
Did you happen to read the little details of the immigration package he attempted to cram down our throats?
If you did, you’d understand that Bush has an agenda that could not possibly be for the average Joe.
It’s all about corporate interest, all about the bottom line.
The American citizen would have gotten totally screwed if this bill had passed.
I ask God give Bush guidance, allow him to see his error and repent for ignoring those whom he serves.
Oh please, what kind of prayer is that? Who are you to ask for President Bush to repent, when I imagine your own life has it's own needs of repentence, as does mine. We are each responsible for our sins. Beside if you believe in Prayer, and divine guidance, then trust in it.
So you're pleading guilty to calling someone stupid when you're too stupid to use the right word. Thanks for pointing that out flashbunny, the defense rests.
You are beyond your depth when it comes to SS. Here is what Reagan signed. This law also forced all USG employees hired after 1983 to join SS, including Congress. It raised the retirement age for full benefits to 67. It raised FICA taxes .03% for the employee. Taxes have been raised 40 times since SS began. Here is the history of Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates since 1937. Read it and you may learn something. The wage cap also goes up annually.
R. Reagan passed full amnesty for all in 86 when he held a solid (very solid) majority in the US Senate? Why didn't he just have the REP Senate block such measures? How couldn't he stop a simple cloture vote?
Reagan made a mistake and Ed Meese says the same thing. Bush wanted to compound that mistake and take down the country as we know it. The Reagan amnesty, and he at least called it amnesty, was supposed to be a one time measure. Read the "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986". "8 USC 1101 note." You will note that is contains many of the same provisions as the 2007 Senate bill. The 1986 Act is still the law of the land. Bush, in dereliction of his constitutional duties, has not enforced it. He has also not met the deadlines contained in the October 2006 Fence Act that was overwhelmingly approved by Congress. Even Hillary Clinton signed it. Why hasn't Bush secured the border?
God gave us all free will, it’s obvious Bush has lost touch with the people who put him in office.
Face it....Bush lost three times to push this absurd immigration fiasco.
Bush attempted to push this through despite almost eighty percent of Americans opposition. What’cha call that?
It’s called an agenda other than that of the will of the American people.
I do pray for Bush often, I pray he receive guidance from God....all the time.
I’m not standing in judgment, I’m simply pointing out the obvious. Sorry if that offends you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.