Bush is worrying me

[WithStamin]

I just found this online:

George Bush has broken a Clinton record, though not one to be proud of. The Federal Register – the publication that lists all proposed and enacted federal regulations – increased to 75,606 pages in 2002. That breaks the previous record set by Bill Clinton in 2000.

You need to know that these federal regulations cost businesses (and, ultimately, the consumers) in America more than all business income taxes combined.

During 2002 Congress passed 269 new laws. During the same year regulatory agencies passed 4,167 final rules. Not one of these rules was then subjected to congressional oversight.

Some more things to think about when considering Bush’s record in the White House.

Federal government spending under Bush has increased at a rate faster than of any year during the Clintonista era.

George Bush has yet to veto one single spending bill.

George Bush has teamed up with congressional Democrats to pass massive spending increases in education, agriculture and other areas.

George Bush has been in office for almost three years, and has yet to recommend the elimination of one single government-spending program.

[Matthew]

and WithStamin finally realizes the fact the rest of us have been stressing for the past 2 and a half years - George W Bush is a HORRIBLE presidnet.

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by WithStamin
I just found this online:

And the guy is trying to CUT taxes?

[.&$]

Originally posted by Charlito Cafe
And the guy is trying to CUT taxes?

yeah, but he was supposed to cut govt spending to go along with it. d'oh!!! stupid george, me forgot something!!!

[WithStamin]

Hey, better than the alternative. :rolleyes:

Bush is doing a great job on international issues. He's been a superb leader. He has the right idea by cutting taxes. However, it's too risky for him politically to cut back on services because then people will see him as unfeeling. Oh well, that's politics for you.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by cal1082
i think he's doin fine, and approval ratings agree. Yeah, he still has my overall approval. I just wish he's have the guts to cut back on social spending like welfare and other programs.

[ms y o o n]

worrying you now? hmm

although i dont like the guy, i dont like to really bitch about him too much because hes not my president.
i dont know what im trying to say but whatever

[NOFXdesendents5]

During 2002 Congress passed 269 new laws. During the same year regulatory agencies passed 4,167 final rules

Congress is doing something? What the hell?

[yeat182]

big government = bad

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Yeah, he still has my overall approval. I just wish he's have the guts to cut back on social spending like welfare and other programs.

hes trying to win democrats votes. thats why hes not cutting back

[Matthew]

Originally posted by yeat182
big government = bad

Except when the "big governemnt" is allowed to inexplicably arrest peopel who have been arbitrarily deemed terrorist suspects, except when the government refsues to legalzie marijuana, except when the governemnt continues to restric the rights of homosexuals, except when the government forces christian values on women through abortion legislation, except when the government goes off and imperialisticaly dicates teh actiosn of other countries (how mcuh bigger does it get when you are telling OTHER people what to do), and except when the government arrest people for protesting ebcasue they have been deemed "a threat to the president"?

I guess in thsoe instances, a big governemnt isn't too bad?

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by Matthew
Except when the "big governemnt" is allowed to inexplicably arrest peopel who have been arbitrarily deemed terrorist suspects, except when the government refsues to legalzie marijuana, except when the governemnt continues to restric the rights of homosexuals, except when the government forces christian values on women through abortion legislation, except when the government goes off and imperialisticaly dicates teh actiosn of other countries (how mcuh bigger does it get when you are telling OTHER people what to do), and except when the government arrest people for protesting ebcasue they have been deemed "a threat to the president"?

I guess in thsoe instances, a big governemnt isn't too bad?

And everyone was just collectivly bitch-slapped.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by cal1082
Our gov. was found or more moral principals, so it's been like this since the beginning, and yet with all these restrictions we are the most prosperious, and one of the most free countries ever.

Wait.... so having a big governemnt CAN leadtogood things? Make up your mind.

[open mind]

Yes bush's spending practices defy reasonable thought.
Yes bush's foreign policy cuts down today's terrorists in a fashion that ensures twice as many will be around tomorrow while at the same time pissing off the rest of the world.
Yes bush needs to go next election but who can we realisticlly replace bush with that isn't bought and paid for by the same corporations bush is?
Oh yeah i'm new here so i'd like ta say hey to all of you :o

[evil zach]

Originally posted by cal1082
i think he's doin fine, and approval ratings agree.
With him un-able to produce any WMDs his aproval ratings have been going down steadily.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by evil zach
With him un-able to produce any WMDs his aproval ratings have been going down steadily. He's still at 65%, which isn't half bad.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

[evil zach]

Last i heard it was in the around 59%

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0712-01.htm

Published on Saturday, July 12, 2003 by the Washington Post
Support for Bush Declines As Casualties Mount in Iraq
by Richard Morin and Claudia Deane

Public support for President Bush has dropped sharply amid growing concerns about U.S. military casualties and doubts whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Bush's overall job approval rating dropped to 59 percent, down nine points in the past 18 days. That decline exactly mirrored the slide in public support for Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, which now stands at 58 percent.



Six in 10 said it damaged the image of the United States abroad, and half said the conflict caused permanent damage to U.S. relations with France, Germany and other allies who opposed the war.



And for the first time, slightly more than half the country -- 52 percent -- believes there has been an "unacceptable" level of U.S. casualties in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

Still, only 26 percent said there had been more casualties than they had expected. Three in four say they expect "significantly more" American dead and wounded.

The poll found that seven in 10 Americans believe the United States should continue to keep troops in Iraq, even if it means additional casualties. That view was shared by majorities of Republicans, Democrats and political independents.

A majority of the country -- 57 percent -- still consider the war with Iraq to have been worth the sacrifice. That's down 7 percentage points from a Post-ABC News poll in late June, and 13 points since the war ended 10 weeks ago.

Taken together, the latest survey findings suggest that the mix of euphoria and relief that followed the quick U.S. victory in Iraq continues to dissipate, creating an uncertain and volatile political environment. The risks are perhaps most obvious for Bush, whose continued high standing with the American people has been fueled largely by his handling of the war on terrorism and, more recently, the war in Iraq.

On the domestic front, meanwhile, fewer than half the nation approves of Bush's handling of the economy.

The poll found that the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has sharply divided the country. Fifty percent said Bush intentionally exaggerated evidence suggesting Iraq had such weapons, while nearly as many -- 46 percent -- disagreed.

"If we have the capability of finding out that Joe Blow No-Name has dodged his taxes for the past 10 years, why don't we have the capability of . . . finding a foolproof method of finding out whether the intelligence we gather is accurate and making it rock-solid before we jump into another situation?" said James Pike, 41, an auto mechanic from Ogdensburg, N.Y.

Earlier this week, Bush administration officials acknowledged that the president should not have claimed in the State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from African countries in a bid to build nuclear weapons.

The survey also found that Americans are divided over whether the United States should send troops to Liberia to help enforce a cease-fire in that West African nation's civil war, a move the Bush administration is considering. Fifty-one percent opposed sending troops to Liberia as part of a broader peacekeeping operation, while 41 percent favored the idea.

"I don't really know that we have any business there," said Penny Tarbert, 50, who is disabled and lives in Bucyrus, Ohio. "They've been fighting this [civil war] for a long time. I think we've got ourselves in enough right now that we don't need to be spreading ourselves any thinner."

An overwhelming majority of Americans -- 80 percent -- said they fear the United States will become bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping mission in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

"I'm worried about how long we're going to be there," said Betty Stillwell, 71, a writer from central California. "We were supposed to be in there and out. By now I thought they would have set up a government, and they haven't done that yet. . . . I think the whole thing was poorly planned, no thought to the aftermath."

Despite broad doubts and growing concerns, few Americans say it's time for the troops to come home. Three in four support the current U.S. presence in Iraq -- a view shared by large majorities of Republicans (89 percent), Democrats (60 percent) and political independents (75 percent).

The number of U.S. casualties, while troubling to many, has not outstripped most people's expectations. One in four said there had been more casualties than they had anticipated, while 36 percent said there had been fewer and 37 percent said it was about what they had expected.

"I don't think any [casualties] are acceptable, but they're necessary," said Chris Eldridge, 29, an electronics technician from Louisville. "They're a lot lower than I expected. I expected there would be more during the initial fighting. I expected a lot more killed. Fortunately there hasn't been."

Danny Buckner, 53, a Navy retiree who lives in Brownwood, Tex., had a somewhat different view. "Considering we are having a cease-fire we sure are losing a lot of lives," he said. "They're killing us right and left. I don't know what the deal is."

The poll suggests growing public belief that the United States must kill or capture Saddam Hussein for the war to be successful. A 61 percent majority now believe Hussein must be found, up 11 points since April. That view was shared by roughly similar majorities of Republicans, Democrats and political independents.

"It would be nice if we could find Saddam Hussein and get it over with," said Susan Leidich, 39, a homemaker from Birch Run, Mich. "It seems like if the military leaves, it could be like Desert Storm [the 1991 Persian Gulf War], and then Saddam Hussein would take right back over."

The survey suggests that most Americans believe the recent war produced mixed results. Six in 10 said it damaged the image of the United States abroad, and half said the conflict caused permanent damage to U.S. relations with France, Germany and other allies who opposed the war. The public was equally divided whether the war contributed to long-term peace and stability in the Middle East.

But seven in 10 said the war helped improve the lives of the Iraqi people. And six in 10 said it contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

A total of 1,006 randomly selected adults were interviewed July 9 and 10. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points

now, I know it may be hard to belive the Washington Post, but jest suspend your disbeliefe

[Matthew]

Originally posted by WithStamin
He's still at 65%, which isn't half bad.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

No. It's only 35% bad! (ba-dum cha!)

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Matthew
No. It's only 35% bad! (ba-dum cha!) Now that's humor!