Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on March 12, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics
The Commerce Department reported that the trade deficit in January was the second highest ever in the history of the U S. We have run record high trade deficits in each of the last three years. Last year it hit $617.1 Billion which is an increase of 24% in just one year. Last monthy a surge is textile shipments from China and high oil prices pushed the monthly deficit to $58.3 Billion.

Bush is not using the controls within the trade agreements to help stem the trade deficit. China, which Bush brought into the WTO in responsible for over 1/3 of our total trade deficit. China is dumping things like textiles and sets its currency exchange rates that results in higher prices for our goods in China and lower prices for goods made in China sold in the U S. Even though there are controlls wihtin our trade agreements, Bush IS NOT USING THEM to help reduce the trade deficit. The latest dumping of textiles is likely to cause the remaining textile industry to end production in the U S and cause the loss of another 345,000 American jobs.

What is even worse then Bush not using the control provisions with the trade agreements is that he wants Congress to approve the extention of the Free Trade policy to Central America that will impact our sugar industry like China did for texriles and many other goods. This is another example where the interest of Big business is put ahead of the American people. The reason Bush gives for supporting the so called "Free Trade" is that it results in lower prices. When no one in America has a job that pays a living wage, how will Americans be able to but anything even at the lower prices ? The Free Trade Policy which Bush is following has failed for over 12 years. The rate of failure has increased under Bush as he expanded the policy to China. Why would anyone propose to expand a policy that has failed to work for over 12 years?

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Mar 12, 2005
What about the WTO /China, the Iraq War, precscription drugs (that was to cost 400 Billion and is now up to 750 Billion) with no money to pay for it, $300 Billion for the Iraq war that was to cost 60-80 Billion and the three tax cuts. What do you call those things?
on Mar 12, 2005
Para Ted 2K

George W. Bush is someone with almost no accomplishments except being the son of a man who was successful and had powerful associates. George W. in his youth used booze and drugs. He was a poor student, used his fathers pull to put him ahead of others to get into the Natuional Guard so he could stay out of Vietnam and then did not fulfill his obligations in the guard and again used pull to get out early with an honorable discharge. He got into Harvard Grad School with a "c" average- not without help! He formed two companies with investments from his fathers contacts, ran them into the ground and then was bailed out with a part ownership in the Rangers that did make money but not because of Bush. If you were to remove the influence of his family contacts you have a person that accomplished almost nothing of value and then became Governor of Texas and then President. N0, I do not have a lot of respect for him because as a person he accomplished almost nothing without the benefit of privilege . He is as different from his father as night and day!
on Mar 12, 2005
Gene -

I applaud your candor (not that we haven't heard all this before). That's the kind of disclosure that informs your readers exactly where you're coming from. It would be fruitless to point out the errors (notice, I didn't call them "lies") in your list of Bush's alleged sins, since your mind is as tightly closed as a new inmate's asshole, but I give you credit for laying your prejudice out there for all to see.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Mar 12, 2005
DSH -

on Mar 13, 2005
George W. Bush is someone with almost no accomplishments except being the son of a man who was successful and had powerful associates.


Need I remind you that, while your own accomplishments are something with which you are proud (and I consider great myself), to the pacifist and anti corporation set, you're whole life has been wasted?
on Mar 13, 2005
Double posts are a waste too!! ;~D
on Mar 13, 2005
ParaTed 2K

First I am not a pacifist. I agree military force is required to protect our nation. I spent four years on active duty during Vietnam ( Unlike George W.) and 26 years in the Reserve (and I did not fail to attend drills or take physicals). So please do not paint me with that title. The difference is that so far as I am concerned, the lives wasted by death and injury to remove Saddam was not worth the price since we were not threatened by him.

also I am not anti-corporation I am pro-American. Thanks to the objectives of some corporations of only looking at maximizing profits is working to the detriment of the American worker. I understand the principle of reducing costs, increasing profitability and competition. If we continue the loss of American jobs that enable people to earned a living wage the end result is going to disaster for the United States and is people. We can not ignore the fact that whole industries have left this country. Industries that we created and we cannot ignore the the trade deficit. There must be a balance struck between profitability and responsibility to ensure that the people in this country may continue to enjoy economic prosperity which is as central to maintaining our freedom.



Daiwa

I spent some time looking into the background George W. Bush. I did not know a lot about him and wanted to understand what experience and background he brought to the job of President of the United States. Although I'm sure any Bush supporter is not happy with what I have pointed out about his lack of accomplishments, unless all of the information published about his earlier years is a lie George Bush did not accomplished very much. To put it another way, if George W. Bush were George Smith and his father were just an average Joe working day-to-day to support his family, lets take a look at how different the life of George W. Bush would be. First it is possible he might have been charged with drug use. It is very doubtful he would have in admitted to the Yale University based on his academic performance. He would never have been admitted to the Harvard graduate school without the assistance of someone. He would not have gone ahead of 150 other individuals for a slot in the Texas Air National Guard without help. It is likely that he would have faced some sort of administrative discipline for not taking his physical and attending the drills that he was required to attend. He would not have been granted an early release from his initial commitment to the guard and probably not received an honorable but rather an administrative discharge because he failed to obey regulations that result in him in the grounded. No one would have invested millions of dollars into corporations for an individual who had no experience or background in the oil business without the links that the Bush family had with weatthy investors ( some of which were wealthy oilman from Arab countries) that provided the money for George Bush's two ill-fated corporations. He would not have been bailed out after those two failures and been granted a share in the Texas Rangers and later named manager which is the source of a lot of Mr. Bush's wealth. He would not been elected governor of Texas without the political and financial support of the Bush family associates. And finally he would not have been able to run for president without the help from the business and political contacts of the Bush Family!.

Why then the adulation of George W. Bush? I would like someone to show me what of substance he accomplished without the assistance or privilege that he experienced from help of George Herbert Walker Bush and his associates? The only success that I have seen in his background was as Governor of Texas to forge some compromise with the Texas Legislature. However he would never have been Governor of Texas had it not been for his father and contacts the Bush family.
on Mar 13, 2005
First I am not a pacifist. I agree military force is required to protect our nation. I spent four years on active duty during Vietnam ( Unlike George W.) and 26 years in the Reserve (and I did not fail to attend drills or take physicals). So please do not paint me with that title. The difference is that so far as I am concerned, the lives wasted by death and injury to remove Saddam was not worth the price since we were not threatened by him.


Col Gene. I did not call you a pacifist or anti corporation. I said that many who are pacifist and anti corporation would look at what you and I consider great accomplishements in your life and consider them as much a waste of a life as you consider Prs. Bush's life.
on Mar 13, 2005
I understand ParaTed2K
on Mar 13, 2005

As long as the US economy is growing faster in terms of raw dollars than its major trading partners, the US trade deficit will increase.

If an American has $10 to spend while the European only has say $5 to spend and the Chinese citizen only $1 to spend, what do you think is  going to happen?

on Mar 13, 2005
You know, I read a brief article about this on Col Gene's blog and said to myself "Betcha Daiwa adds nothing but pithy, snotty little comments, because this is like the 50th example Col. Gene has given of how bad a president Bush is, yet Daiwa and his fellow FoxZombies have not once provided a compelling, reality-based argument in favour of Bush. It must really suck being a Bush supporter, getting pwned on a daily basis in the blogsphere, armed with nothing but vitriol, obfuscation, and a six dollar mullet haircut." I love it when I don't disappoint myself


Bwahahahahahah....................
Well stated. Thanks for not disappointing us.
on Mar 14, 2005
Love you, too, dabe.

Gene -

There is a big difference between support and adulation. I have little use for or interest in what Bush (or Clinton, or Reagan, or any other President) did before his political career. That has no relevance. Harry Truman was a hat salesman, for crying out loud, but is now widely regarded as having been a pretty good President. I'll judge President Bush on his positions and actions as President. I suspect my judgement will be different than yours, which is OK. While there are significant issues on which I disagree or differ with the President's position or approach, overall I have concluded that he's the right man for the job during this particular era of our history. Quibbling over what he did 30 years ago and how he got where he is seems such a waste of intellectual energy, and has nothing to do with what he has or has not done about the trade deficit.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Mar 14, 2005
Daiwa

A person's ability to do a job is in part impacted by their experience and background. I agree that in the end, how well George W. did as President will be more important then his lack of success in the past. It was how he is doing as President that got me started at looking into his past and to evaluting the results of his policies.

From the outset, I did not like how Bush acted in the primary with Sen McCain. His election in 2000 is another issue that is not what I would like to see in an election. There should have been a full recount in Florida.

Now lets see how Bush delt with the major issues that faced him as president.

the political discord when he was elected was poor and it has gotten worse since 2001

We went from off surplus to a huge deficit with no end in sight.

The trade situation has gotten significantly worse under Bush with no end in sight.

The difficulty with inadequate military strength has gotten worse under President Bush.

His energy policy was a giveaway to big companies and as a result we have no energy policy in over four years.

He is ignored the bigger problem which is Medicare and Medicaid and sought to make changes in Social Security.

The centerpiece of the Social Security change does not solve the problem of solvency which is the major issue at hand.

Job loss in this country during his administration has become epidemic. He has not been effective in reducing the huge job loss in America.

He, for the first time in modern history, used preemptive use of our military to attack the country did not pose a security threat to the United States.

World opinion as to his leadership is very negative. Even though he has obtained the support of a few key leaders, people in those countries do not support either their own government the actions of the United States.

His attitude is one of , DO IT MY WAY!.

The countries being governed from the right, moderates and liberals are simply ignored. That is dangerous situation. Some will say that 51% voted for Bush. When you look in his individual policies, most Americans disagree with the policies of George Bush and the direction he is taking this country.

Therefore when I see how well has done at solving existing problems or dealing new ones, I cannot find his results are good for America. I cannot understand how the federal deficit, trade deficit, loss of jobs, budget priorities of Mr. Bush, the Iraq war, the way in which most of the world looks at our president as a swaggering overbearing leader are good. What has he accomplished that you see as being good for the future of this country?

on Mar 14, 2005
There should have been a full recount in Florida.


This blows all credibility you might have had Gene. How many more recounts did you want? The Florida thing has become a sad joke mostly because of people who just can't accept the fact that Prs. Bush won. No matter how they recounted it, no matter how many times they recounted it. Period.

If the Gore camp thought they could have done better with a full recount, they would have pushed for it, but instead they chose to weight the outcome by picking and choosing the counties they wanted recounted. Even in a lopsided recount, THEY LOST. Get over it!!
on Mar 14, 2005
Gene -

Your impression of the power of the Presidency to control everything is very skewed and rather divorced from reality. As for your rhetorical question, no President has to "accomplish" anything. That's one of the popular misconceptions about the Presidency. The President's primary role lies in the conduct of our foreing policy, over which he has considerable discretion, though not unfettered freedom of action. Many of the decisions Bush has made and legislation he has pursued successfully as President have been and will be good for the future of this country. He gets no credit from people like you for managing the impacts of the collapse of the tech bubble and 9/11, turning around a recession that was already in progress on his taking office; the cushioning effects of the tax cuts and other policies avoided what could have been far worse economic consequences, but since you can't prove a negative, his accomplishment gets dismissed. The jury is still out, in my view, as to whether the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions will ultimately make us more safe and secure, but I believe they will. I happen to believe the President correctly assessed the oppression and stagnation in the Middle East that was providing the environment for the growth of terrorism and correctly concluded that the only way things were ever going to change for the better there was for the seeds of democracy to be planted and allowed to grow, even if that meant military overthrow of oppressive regimes. Only with freedom and the establishment of governments of the people is there any hope of those governments acting in the interests of their own citizens as opposed to the interests of the ruling oppressors. The evolution of democracy in the Middle East, which will be stuttering and messy, will make the world a safer place and, I believe, vindicate President Bush. I believe we will, ten or twenty years from now, look back on this time as a significant turning point in history for the better.

Cheers,
Daiwa
3 Pages1 2 3