Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on October 8, 2004 By COL Gene In Politics
As we move closer to Novemner 2, the polls continue to show a 50/50 split in America. If one were able to step back and look at the facts without the spin both sides use, it would seem to me Kerry should be far ahead.

Polls show that 60% want major changes in our policies and 89 % want some changes. Part of the 50% that are supporting Bush must be part of the 60% and 89% that want change. These Bush supporters must know he will not change in a second term and by voting for him they will get what they claim they do not want - more of the same!

The events in Iraq clearly show the way Bush conducted this war was an error. Even if you supported going to war, few can say he has done the job well. His choices have increased the danger to our military and have turned the Iraq people against the U.S. Why would we want to reward Bush with another term or run the risk of another conflict in which he applied his inept choices.

Look at the economic results:

Job growth that has not produced the jobs needed for our growing population. Bush tells us about the 1.5 million new jobs created during the past 15 months and Kerry tells us about the net loss of 800,000 jobs since Bush took office. What about the over 5 million new workers that enteted the work force in America since Bush took office? Where are the jobs for them? We are 6 million jobs short and the Bush economic policies and tax cuts have not stimulated the economy to create the needed jobs.

We have gone from a national debt of $5.8 Trillion when Bush took office to $7.5 Trillion today. If you turn to OMB and the Bush budget projection, you will find the president predicts that by the end of FY 2008, we will have a national debt of just short of $10 Trillion and never shows a balanced federal budget. His next action is to make all his tax cuts permanent and create even more debt.

Look at the Trade deficit and the jobs that keep going out of this country. What have his policies done to stem that loss?

Look at oil prices. Have we moved away from dependence on foreign oil? NO. Rather then supporting an energy policy that would require increased fuel efficiency, Bush insists on drilling in Alaska that would not produce as much oil as increasing average mileage by one mile per gallon. In addition, drilling in Alaska would take 10 years before any amount of added oil would be produced.

The above are all facts about our situation on October 8, 2004. How can half of America want to continue this by re-electing George W?

Comments (Page 1)
6 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Oct 08, 2004
You gotta remember, COL Gene, Jesus wants George Bush to be President. And a lot of the fanatical religious wackos will vote for anybody as long as they repeat over and over "I love Jesus." Evangelistic Christians are consistant, if not very bright.
on Oct 08, 2004
"The above are all facts about our situation on October 8, 2004. How can half of America want to continue this by re-electing George W?"

and how can the other half of Americans convince themselves that Kerry is really going to change all of this?
on Oct 08, 2004
People refuse to get past there age-old bias of refusing to vote for the best person for the job; instead they would rather vote for their party representitives because they are so set in their ways. People would rather do it the "easy" way of just voting straight Republican, or straight Democratic. They don't want to take the time to really educate themselves without their mud-colored bias afflicting their view.
on Oct 08, 2004
People are divided by cultural battle lines this year. Some seem to feel that by voting Bush, it is a statement of their wish for America to take a culturally conservative route that entails the right to life, an agressive world stance, and the ability to hunt turkey with an assault rifle, while many people voting for Kerry seem to believe that though Kerry harbours relatively similar policies (social issues such as abortion aside), he'll do a better job at carrying them out and be the "our boy on the inside". With the current administration's foreign policy attitude of impulsiveness and inconsistancy, along with their failure to address domestic issues, and their insistance in "tort reform", supposedly touted to keep down healthcare costs, we simply can't afford to "stay the course".
on Oct 08, 2004
and how can the other half of Americans convince themselves that Kerry is really going to change all of this?

So it's better to do nothing at all, right? Give change a chance and maybe you'll get it.
on Oct 08, 2004
If Jesus tells me to vote for George, I will. If I do not hear from him, I will vote for Kerry as a Moderate Republican of over v40 years.

I am not sure Kerry has the answers, but I KNOW GEORGE W. does not have them!

The Hell with party loyalty. How about what is best of the majority of Americans long term!
on Oct 08, 2004
The Hell with party loyalty. How about what is best of the majority of Americans long term!


Wish there were more people like you!
on Oct 08, 2004

Some of us think Bush had done an adequate job and that Kerry would be a poorer choice.

As someone who's not religious, I could care less that you wish to smear those who believe in God as "whackos". But I think it demonstrates the small mindedness of the far left.

If you want to start impugning voters, how about this - let's only allow those who pay taxes to vote. Or better yet, let voting be proportional to taxes paid. If the "Jesus freaks" are worthless voters, why stop there? Let's dump off the parasites of the country from voting too. Want to take a guess who would win if only tax payers were allowed to vote?

on Oct 08, 2004

So it's better to do nothing at all, right? Give change a chance and maybe you'll get it.

Change for the sake of change is a fool's errand. Especially in a time of war.  The economy is in pretty good shape, the nation hasn't been attacked again since 9/11, and America's two biggest enemies are either in jail or have had their organizations largely taken down.

on Oct 08, 2004
The economy is good for whom? Not the poor, not most of the middle income people, not the unemployed. It is good for everyone at the top. When interest rates return to historic norms, as they will, see how everyone likes to pay the interest that will be required beacuse of the Bush deficit. It will grow and grow and grow and give us NOTHING in return! How will you like sending $200 billion of your tax dollars EVERY YEAR out of America like our jobs?

Those who believe Bush knows what he is doing have got a real shock comming!
on Oct 08, 2004
have had their organizations largely taken down


Wow. This is so completely false, it would take more time than I've got right now to refute.
on Oct 08, 2004
Some of us think Bush had done an adequate job and that Kerry would be a poorer choice.

I really think this is the "sticking" point that distinguishes our [Kerry and Bush supporters] opinions on the candidates when laying hot button social issues aside. I have a hard time believing your are sincere in your opinion, but I have to take your word for it.
on Oct 08, 2004

The economy is good for whom? Not the poor, not most of the middle income people, not the unemployed. It is good for everyone at the top. When interest rates return to historic norms, as they will, see how everyone likes to pay the interest that will be required beacuse of the Bush deficit. It will grow and grow and grow and give us NOTHING in return! How will you like sending $200 billion of your tax dollars EVERY YEAR out of America like our jobs?

We have positive GDP growth, the unemployment rate is less than it averaged during the 90s, and interest rates are low.  You can sit around worrying about your cherry picked statistics. I'll work with reality as I see it. I don't like deficits either. However, I dislike tax increases even more.

on Oct 08, 2004
If one were able to step back and look at the facts without the spin both sides use, it would seem to me Kerry should be far ahead.


That's classic liberal bias .

What about the over 5 million new workers that enteted the work force in America since Bush took office?

What about them? At worse, we have 5 million new discouraged workers. Discouraged workers have never been counted in unemployment statistics. It's hardly objective to start counting them now. Or maybe you have a 40 year record of tracking discouraged workers you would like to share?
on Oct 08, 2004
The unemployment rate is low only because millions of unemployed have not been counted. Many people have been unemployed for so long they are not included in the unemployment rate calculation. You will tell me that the we had other unemployed in the 90's that were not counted but it is the number which are much larger today. Given the 5 million new workers for which the economy has not produced jobs plus the net 800,000 less jobs than in 2001, we can not have the same unemployment rate. In addition, many of the 1.5 million jobs that have been created during the past 15 months pay less then the jobs that were lost and have fewer benefits.

You also do not address the deficit. It will be a major issue when interest rates return to normal levels and the interest in the annual budget goes off the scale. It will take money from everything or will require massive tax increases. That increase in the interest will kick in about the same time as Medicare begins paying out more that it takes in in taxes. Add our growing defense needs, education and the real fun is yet to come! Please do not forget, we some how must repay the national debt some day or par interest forever. Since 1980, the American taxpayer has paid $6.5 Trillion in interest that has bought us nothing. 40% of the interest on the debt held by the public is paid to foreign companies and individuals. That should please the American taxpayer.
6 Pages1 2 3  Last