Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.




The Senate, as part of its advise and consent function, has requested certain information from the State Department concerning various incidents surrounding John Bolton who is the president’s nominee for UN ambassador. The State Department and the Bush administration have not provided some of the information requested by the Senate because they claim the Senate does not need the information requested because it is not relevant.

It is not up to the White House or the State Department to tell the Senate what is relevant to fulfill their constitutional responsibility of advise and consent. If the Senate does not receive all the information it has requested concerning John Bolton, it should NOT vote on his nomination. To allow the State Department or the White House to circumscribe the process of the Senate in advise and consent process would be a violation of the separation of powers.

Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on May 17, 2005
Dr.Miller, Col G, why don't you both go your seperate ways and fantascise in both of your ignorances....
on May 17, 2005
I have no fantasies and I have stated analysis of people such as the chief actuary for the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office who have flatly stated what Bush is suggesting does not fix social security. It is the opinion of these experts who have looked at the proposals and have concluded that what Bush is suggesting does not fix Social Security. Bush is suggesting changes that will cut future benefits. If we do noting to Social Security benefits will be cut slightly last if we do what Bush is suggesting. drmiler has no idea what he is talking about and is not arguing with me but with the experts that have provided their evaluation of the Bush plan.
on May 17, 2005
drmiler has no idea what he is talking about and is not arguing with me but with the experts that have provided their evaluation of the Bush plan.


That's where your goofed in the head! I'm arguing *your* experts with my experts! You just aren't liking the outcome.
on May 17, 2005
It is the opinion of these experts who have looked at the proposals and have concluded that what Bush is suggesting does not fix Social Security.


--you have this and yet you argue this:

If we do noting to Social Security benefits will be cut slightly last if we do what Bush is suggesting. drmiler has no idea what he is talking about and is not arguing with me but with the experts that have provided their evaluation of the Bush plan.


on May 18, 2005
Bush is telling us that Social Security is in trouble because it will not be able to pay all the promised retirement in the future (starting in 2042). Social Security has said that he is correct and there will need to be a 25% CUT in benefits if we do NOTHING starting in 2042.

Bush proposed to fix the problem by cutting benefits an average of 30% through a change in the way the COLA is calculated.

Now if the problem is the inability of Social Sceurity to continue paying the full benefits, how does the Bush cutting benefits 30% fix a 25% cut if we do NOTHING?
This analysis comes diredctly from the Chief Actuary of Social Security and the Congressional budget Office.
on May 18, 2005
Now if the problem is the inability of Social Sceurity to continue paying the full benefits, how does the Bush cutting benefits 30% fix a 25% cut if we do NOTHING?


--Perhaps, the money saved from cutting benefits now, will go to the benefits then (probably not, it'll just line the poloticians pockets)
on May 18, 2005
Bush is not cutting benefits NOW he is cutting them in the future the same as if we do nothing. In other words the Bush solution has the same results as doing nothing. The Bush solution is NO SOLUTION! He has no solutions for Social Security, Medicare, Jobs, Trade. border security, the deficit. We got a REAL WINNER in the White House!
on May 18, 2005
COL--Think about it, cut money now,take the money saved and apply it to future benefits...hmmm? Just an idea...
on May 18, 2005
COL--Think about it, cut money now,take the money saved and apply it to future benefits...hmmm? Just an idea...
on May 19, 2005
Cutting benefits NOW would mean people already receiving benefits would get less Social Security. How does that solve the problem? The issue is the systems ability to pay 100% of the benefits starting in 2042. To do that, either less people need to be alive to reveive Social Security or we will need more money in the Trust Fundf to be able to pay the benefits to the baby boomers. Making believe that individual accounts that take more money out of the Trust Fund will make the system able to pay the future benefitrs is just NUTS. If someone can not pay their bills do you solve their problem by reducing their income?
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4