Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on July 20, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics



In an attempt to justify his first veto, Bush surrounded himself with a few children that were born from left-over in-vitro frozen stem-cells to show what he did by his veto was proper. Bush claims if we allowed federally funded research on excess Stem-Cells these children would never have been born. That is another lie that his spin doctors cooked up.

The truth is that donors that have excess stem-cells that remain after they have completed their in-vitro procedures have two options- Allow some one else to use the embryos like the few people Bush used in his photo op or have them destroyed as medical waste. Of the estimated 400,000 embryos that remain after in-vitro procedures in this country, the vast majority will DESTROYED. Passage of the law would have allowed donors to give their embryos to another couple or to allow their use to help find CURES for HUMAN SUFFERING. In no event would the passage of this law have "taken human Life"as Bush suggested since the vast majority of the excess stem-cells will be destroyed now that this bill has been vetoed and they will be destroyed without helping anyone! Thus what Bush said is another LIE. What will happen is that all the excess embryos that are not given to other couples will be destroyed while millions of people that could have been helped by this bill continue to suffer. For those that claim this will not impact life-saving research please look at what Senator Bill Frist, majority Leader of the Senate and Doctor said, "given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing embryonic stem cell research, I think additional lines should be made available". Every major research facility has said the restrictions imposed by Bush will significantly hamper the search for cures that cover a large number of horrible diseases that cause great suffering!

Bush says this is the right moral compass for our country. No, that is HIS MORAL COMPESS that he is forcing on our country despite the fact that the MAJORITY of both the Congress and the people do not agree with Bush. Every day the WILL of the American people is being ignored and we are moving close and closer to a Dictatorship under Bush.

It is time to identify ALL the members of Congress that failed to vote to override the Bush Veto (the vote in the house was 235 to override and 193 to sustain the Bush Veto) and make sure they are NOT REELECTED in November 2006. I bet the Senate will not vote so the Conservative Senators that support Bush and his indefensible position will not be identified as refusing to stand up for what the majority of our people want on this issue.

Comments (Page 4)
8 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Jul 22, 2006
Daiwa

Yes, I am aware Bush received an Honorable Discharge. I am also aware that ANY other member that failed to obey regulations and attend requited drills would have been punished and not have received an Honorable Discharge. Bush got that Honorable discharge with the help of some very powerful person that did Bush 41 a BIG Favor. Without that DD 214 showing Honorable Discharge, Bush would not have been elected Governor or President. GWB DID NOT earn an Honorable Discharge pure and simple. If any other member of the Guard did JUST WHAT Bush DID, they would have been punished! I know that for a fact since I was a Commander of a Reserve Unit at the time Bush was in the Guard. If any of my troops had failed to take their REQUIRED physical or FAILED to attend Drills, they would not have received an Honorable Discharge!
on Jul 22, 2006
Daiwa

WHY would Lt Bush have risked serious discipline and grounding by not taking his required physical? The only explication that makes ANY sense was that Bush was taking Drugs that would have shown up when he took his physical.

When Bush ran for President, he signed a pledge that he did not use drugs back to 1975. WHY 1975? He was in the guard from 1968-73.
on Jul 22, 2006
For example, if he wanted to make a difference in unnecessary spending he would have vetoed the bill that would have built a bridge in Alaska to an island were 50 people lived at a cost of $230 Million dollars


If I remember right (and it's been a little so I could be off a little) that bridge was added, as an amendment, to another appropriation bill that was in MUST PASS situation. So, which should Bush have done - vetoed a bill for one item he didn't like and risk shutting the government down or let it ride and get to keep the government open?

The only way that Bush could've vetoed that ONE ITEM, was if he had (dare I mention it?) the Line Item Veto power. Which, again if I remember correctly, you've been screaming that Bush is unworthy of on the occassions it's come up. So which should it be? Let all the pork through as amendments to other bills, or provide the president with the Line Item Veto power so that he can do some trimming once bills reach him?

Personally, I'd rather have responsible Congresscritters, but that's not likely to happen in my lifetime, so I'd go with the line item veto. Even if I might not agree with future presidents' use of the power.
on Jul 22, 2006
You're such a big fat Blue Marlin waiting to get hooked, Gene. To paraphrase Tony Montana.
on Jul 22, 2006
I just like to get you Bushies going about your lame Commander-in-Chief’s military disservice.

I used the bridge as one example. Bush has done NOTHING to control spending and has created the worst financial morass this country has had in its 230 year history. The only president that comes close to GWB for disastrous financial management was Reagan. Between the two of them that have given the taxpayers 90% of the National Debt and 90% of the annual interest we must pay because they did not know what they were doing. To think that Bush has an MBA from Harvard must make the officials at Harvard cringe. His MBA like his Honorable Discharge should be REVOKED!
on Jul 22, 2006
. 'U.S. Headed for Bankruptcy': Key Fed Member


London's Daily Telegraph is reporting that the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank's Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, a leading constituent of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has announced that the United States is on the path to bankruptcy - if it is not already there.

"To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors?" he asks, according to the daily.

While the article acknowledges that the U.S. budget deficit is still small compared to those of many European nations, Kotlikoff asserts that: "The U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds."

The respected Fed member goes on to say that the only way to examine the solvency of a country is to look at "the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations." If these exceed those generations' resources, "get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country's policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy."

While Kotlikoff admits he is not sure the United States will actually become insolvent, he says many indicators point to such a development.

Especially worrisome is the calculation of the massive long-term gap between anticipated government spending and all future receipts. This gulf "will widen immensely as the Baby Boomer generation retires, and as the amount the state will have to spend on healthcare and pensions soars," the Telegraph reports.

"The total fiscal gap could be an almost incomprehensible $65.9 trillion, according to a study by Professors Gokhale and Smetters."

Says Kotlikoff: "This figure is more than five times U.S. GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth. One way to wrap one's head around $65.9 trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying."
on Jul 22, 2006
London's Daily Telegraph is reporting that the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank's Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, a leading constituent of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has announced that the United States is on the path to bankruptcy - if it is not already there.


Nice try, now try again. Kotlikoff is "NOT" associated with nor has he ever been associated with the St. Louis Fed Reserve Bank. Just "more" leftist spin! Next time "try" not to believe everything you read, or at least verify it "before" you post it.


Laurence J. Kotlikoff is a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Fellow of the Econometric Society, and President of Economic Security Planning, Inc., a company specializing in financial planning software. His previous books include Essays on Saving, Bequests, Altruism, and Life-Cycle Planning; Macroeconomics: An Integrated Approach; Generational Accounting; and What Determines Saving.


Link
on Jul 22, 2006
I skipped all the comments. Sorry to any of you that posted.

Gene, you're a sorry excuse for a blogger. You might, however, be the greatest example of an obsessive-compulsive masochist I've ever known. So kudos.

I'll take this opportunity to pimp my OWN article about Bush's first veto -- some of you might be surprised.

Cheers.

Link
on Jul 23, 2006
Myrrander

This is what has been wrong in Washington


Firstly, I'm not bothered by the veto because it's very indicative of the way that Bush has lost control of a congress that has done his bidding since September 11, 2001.

Congress per the constitution makes our laws. It is not the purpose of Congress to rubber stamp the president. In fact it is the President that is charged with the responsibility to ENFORCE the LAWS pass by Congress. If Congress was doing its job it would have overridden the Bush veto and took control of the legislative process. WE have a government that does what Bush wants which is not a Democracy or a Republic but a dictatorship!

Demiler

I do not know if he is a consultant to the Fed or not but he is a noted economist and what he is saying is not only correct but in agreement with the Comptroller General of the United States has said. You attack if we were employed by the Federal Reserve when the issue is the message that the fiscal management of this country is in real trouble!!!!!!!!! Bush and Reagan and their policies (Supply Side or Voodoo economics) that they were able to get Congress to pass have created the fiscal mess this country id in and it will take a lot of PAIN to fix what these two presidents’ have done to our country!!!
on Jul 23, 2006
I think it's hilarious that in one article you bash Bush for the budget deficit and in another you bash him for not funding this research, thus cutting out a budget expense. Make up your mind already.

This is no way outlaws the research, it simply means funding must come from the private sector which, in my opinion, is where the funding for this sort of research should be coming from in the first place.

This is yet another example of how you are so entrenched in your bate Bush campaign that you contradict yourself just to post yet another pointless Bush bashing article thus making yourself yet again look like a clown.
on Jul 23, 2006
MasonM

Spending on Research I support as do the majority of Americans from ALL the polls (about 70%). Tax Cuts to oil companies that are making outrageous profits I do not support. I do not support pet projects that benefit a FEW people like the $230 Million dollar bridge in Alaska. I do support federal spending that could find cured for many diseases. Not only do I support this research to relieve the suffering but to show how short sighted you and Bush are think on the Billions of dollars that would be saved by Medicare/Medicaid by finding CURES for diseases that are driving the costs up and up for health care. One example is Alzheimer’s. That single disease could add many Billions to both Medicare and Medicaid as the Baby boomers retire if we do not fine a way to slow or even prevent this disease. That is a MAJOR research project of Stem-Cell research.

Thus the spending of federal dollars on Stem-cell research holds the potential to BOTH elevate suffering and lowering the Federal spending on health care. The Bush positions flies in the face of both the human and economic issues involved!

If we cut spending that is designed to help a FEW people or companies that need no help. If we increased taxes on those that are at the top of the economic ladder and do NOT NEED the added money from the Bush tax Cuts ( NOT the Middle income Tax Payers). If we enforced our existing tax laws we would be a lot closer to a balanced budget. We should not try to balance the budget by restricting federal expenditures that relieve suffering and cut spending on health care!!!!!!!
on Jul 23, 2006
drmiler

the article said he was a leading consutant:

. 'U.S. Headed for Bankruptcy': Key Fed Member


London's Daily Telegraph is reporting that the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank's Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, a LEADING CONSULTANT of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has announced that the United States is on the path to bankruptcy - if it is not already there.
on Jul 23, 2006
drmiler

the article said he was a leading consutant:

. 'U.S. Headed for Bankruptcy': Key Fed Member


London's Daily Telegraph is reporting that the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank's Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, a LEADING CONSULTANT of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has announced that the United States is on the path to bankruptcy - if it is not already there.


Please try again. One of the 2 posts is wrong, you pick. Please try to remain consistence with your bs.

from your original post:
'U.S. Headed for Bankruptcy': Key Fed Member


London's Daily Telegraph is reporting that the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank's Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, a leading constituent of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has announced that the United States is on the path to bankruptcy - if it is not already there.


And btw.....no matter "how" you look at, it he is "NOT" a Key Fed Member!
on Jul 23, 2006
IslandDog

You are such a PTUZ.


Col, next time you want to insult me.


MAKE SURE YOU KNOW HOW TO SPELL THE INSULT......
on Jul 23, 2006
London's Daily Telegraph is reporting that the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank's Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, a LEADING CONSULTANT of the U.S. Federal Reserve, has announced that the United States is on the path to bankruptcy - if it is not already there.


Gloom and doom. Worst economy since Hoover. The depression is coming.

DEMOCRATS STILL CAN'T BEAT BUSH.
8 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last