Posted on 01/16/2009 8:01:30 PM PST by lonestar67
Limited the overall size of the Federal Government by restraining non-security spending, simultaneously focusing on key priorities and limiting non-security spending growth to 3 percent, slightly above the rate of inflation.
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehouse.gov ...
Good grief. Apparently you were the one that kept slipping that little line into Bush’s speeches ... you know, that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong”.
“Bush provided no leadership in economic or domestic policy from day one.”
That statement is demonstrably false.
Can you handle that?
Fundamentals include things such as:
a healthy work force
an educated work force
an infrastructure capable of delivering goods
a reliable system of communication
And yes, America has some of the best fundamentals in the world on that question.
Nailed it.
Its absolutely true. Demontrate his accomplishments in economic or domestic policy.
Did you read any of the material provided as the subject for this thread?
I am going to guess the answer is no.
Did Bush advise and recommend on no less than three occasions 2002, 2005, and 2006 that Congress should adopt tighter controls on Fannie Mae [that’s a government entity that provides a huge number of mortgages]? He actually did do that.
President Bush reduced Congressional earmarks by 18% in 2008.
President Bush dramatically reduced tax rates by 2003. A failure to keep these tax cuts will lead to an average taxpayer increase of $1800 a year by 2010. President Bush pressed for Social SEcurity reform but was rejected by conservatives—so don’t worry Social Security is going to be fine.
Bush provided an economic stimulus check for all taxpayers in 2006.
Would it help if President Bush came to your house and balanced your checkbook for you?
Really?
Its bad form to respond to yourself but it has been a long day of the quest.
I have spent the entire day trying to find someone who bashes Bush that knows what they are talking about.
Its pretty clear than no such person exists. Basically, they know stuff because “everybody says it.”
Confronted with substance, they show an incredible resilience to simply ignore and demand.
Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR interned thousands of people engaging in complete deprivations of liberty but are now revered as absolute Presidential Saints.
Bush saves the nation from any further terrorist attacks and he is reviled as the most odious Hitleresque person.
Bill Clinton rapes and sexually assaults women and leaves the White House with double the approval of President Bush.
Wow.
Fiddling while Rome burned, warned, how stupid, the man was president, he did not do ++it!!!
Bump to what you said.
Wow, Bush recommended changes to Fannie and Freddie in 2002. Didn’t get done, did it? And Republicans controlled House and Senate. That’s leadership?
He reduced earmarks by 18% in 2008? Wow. To what level? From the obscene rate of growth they experienced in his prior 7 years?
His efforts in social security reform where laughable inept. He couldn’t get a majority of votes from congressmen in his own party. Good leadership? The money is not going to be there to pay the benefits because those living today won’t make the hard decisions.
Economic stimulus cheques? Are you kidding me? That is your definition of success? It was a cynical political ploy with no redeeming or lasting benefits. Have you parlayed your $500 into something worthwhile? The interest on this stimulus costs us $30 billion in interest per year forever.
He should have fired Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
My point is, he warned. Congress failed to act against the good ole boy system.
Can I ask what will undoubtedly seem like another stupid question?
Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States?
Can you tell me who is charged with the budget? Good news, it is but one of the three branches that makes up our government here in the United States.
You won’t have to read long to figure this out.
Better news. Even though President Bush is in the . . . [want to guess which branch. . . go ahead ]
..
.
.
...
.
The executive branch. He has I have noted in previous post which you apparently did not read, used his executive powers to limit Congressional spending in areas such as earmarks and regulation enforcement.
If you are looking for a dictatorship— which I must admit requires much less thought on the part of the citizenry— could I recommend Cuba.
Fascinating sarcasm but unfortunately, your claim was “no leadership.”
You lose.
Thanks for trying to read some of the document.
ROFLOL
yes, cut back to 14,000 I think, but still a historic number. LOL,
And don't print such childish and stupid statements such as have you read the constitution.
There is that little part about protect and defend the borders, which he was a complete buffoon at!
Too bad that was not the question to which Bush was referring. He specifically mentioned things like the banking system, not the health of the workforce and the capabilities of rail and internet.
President Bush has also conceded that he thinks we have to sacrifice the free market system. He has so little grasp on this situation ... it is actually quite sad.
He should really put you on the payroll as a spokesperson or, at least, a guide at his museum. Your unwavering devotion is impressive.
How many vetoes did W use in eight years?
Bush’s social security plan was a good one and was well explained. The Congress chose to reject the plan. That is their fault and again if we had an informed citizenry, the Congress would be held to account.
Instead, intellectual laziness says that President Bush should have forced the Congress to do the right thing, There is no point at which Congress is accountable for their Constitutional duties.
You ignore the massive Bush tax cuts.
Again, keep in mind, the President has ZERO obligation to provide any leadership on the question you are asking. That is NOT his Constitutionally asisgned duty. Commander in Chief— now there is a duty.
Nonetheless, Bush provides impressive economic leadership. Clinton only reduced spending by cashing in our military. That did not do us any good.
No, my claim, despite your continued mistatements, is he was a fiscal disaster. A failure in ecomomic and domestic policy.
Unfortunately, all Americans are the losers.
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.