Bush On the Way to Rock Bottom.....So What?
http://tvnewslies.org/html/on_the_road_to_rock_bottom.html
ON THE ROAD TO ROCK BOTTOM
How Many More People Will Die?
There is no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending: Albert Einstein
THE ROAD TO HELL
George W. Bush is on a collision course with America. His presidency is rolling steadily downhill, as the people of this nation slowly begin to rub sleep away from their eyes. His approval ratings are in the low thirties, unheard of in history for a war president. He is in the worst trouble of his presidency, and it seems almost certain that rock bottom lies just ahead.
It really shouldn’t be so surprising. After all, so much that George W. Bush has touched during his tenure in the White House has deteriorated into disaster. From the environment to the economy, from health care to education – nothing has panned out as promised. In every area and on every issue, life for Americans today, and for their progeny of tomorrow, is filled with doubt and disillusion. And that will only gather momentum as Bushco continues on its inevitable road to rock bottom.
Without doubt, however, the most damaging of the Bush fiascos has been the war in Iraq. Almost everything else is subject to change. Almost all the damage can be turned around by future administrations or legislatures. But this useless war, with its unending blood and pain and suffering is so totally and so very tragically irrevocable. It may be the primary force that accelerates the downfall of this President as he hurtles to rock bottom.
But rock bottom, like so much else in the real world, is relative. While the moment of accountability for George Bush and company seems so near, in reality it is terribly far away.
George W. Bush is still the President of the United States. He has full war powers at his disposal for another three years. No matter what anyone else says or thinks, no matter what the people believe, no matter what happens here or abroad, George W. Bush and his neocon handlers are still in charge of the nation and its policies. No matter what the mood of the nation, they have three full years to do an enormous amount of damage between here and rock bottom.
If they are not stopped now, how many more people will die?
For THE TURNING POINT, THE AVALANCHE and THE PRICE
Read the full article here:
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Don't forget What Happened to Clinton
The impeachment of bush may seem terribly far away, but don't forget about what happened to Clinton. It didn't seem like it could happen. But, it did.
And I'd give my eye teeth
to have that woman-loving man back as POTUS.
Ain't that a pip?
no trouble with agreement there!
I can truly say as a woman, I didn't care how many women he had an affair with, the man RAN the country as it should have been for the people, by the people and the hell with the neocons!
Dont' hold your breath
waiting for Bush to be impeached. The GOP has been working for years to get their network in order, and they have succeeded. Being a moderate liberal, I'd love nothing more than to see the impeachment happen. But the GOP network will never let that happen.
As a follower of politics for several decades, one has to admire the detail and planning that the GOP has done. They have covered all bases, gotten nearly a strangle-hold on the news media, and created a network that makes their voice seem multiple times louder than it really is. We should learn. We're playing catch-up!
As the writer says, Bush still has three more years as Commander-In-Chief, but we have a chance in less than a year to make the road considerably bumpier for Bush and the neo-cons. I can remember few mid-term elections that have the importance that this one has. It is imperative that we take back the Senate, and cut the GOP majority in the House as much as possible.
And when the nomination process starts in a couple of years: (this is my own opinion) no matter how much we like Jimmy Carter, or how many of us agree with Howard Dean, we don't need a candidate remeniscent of either. We need another Harry Truman. Someone who understands bare-knuckle campaigns.
I know everyone says that turns voters off. My counter to that is: Not if it's done correctly. The Swiftboat slime campaign didn't hurt Bush.
Again in closing, we have the opportunity in just a year to turn this entire nightmare of a government around. We need to look closely at the mechanisms the GOP have put in place and learn. And learn well!
Terry
Correction
In my earlier post, I said Howard Dean; I meant John Kerry. Mr. Dean knows bare-knuckle politics, he just leaves himself open for too many attacks. And he was too easy for the GOP to label a "raging liberal".
Bush didn't have to run in the middle, he had everything he needed to run on the right. But, to challenge the machinery the GOP now has in place, a challenger is going to have to capture (and thus run in) the middle. Like it or not, admit it or not, the middle is where most of the country lives.
Terry
Then they don't need me
If that's where the majority of the people are, I don't need to waste my time or my gas.
I suspect, however, that the idea is bullshit. I suspect this, because it's been the excuse used to give us watered down candidates ever since Clinton left office and guess what? The 'majority' didn't carry us, did they?
We'll win again when the DLC gets out of the way and a real democrat is nominated, instead of one of those republican lite war hawk idiots.
I will not vote for a centrist/DLCer.
Depends...
On whether our goal is to make a statement or win the election.
In the run for his second term, Jimmy Carter did a good job of making the liberal statement. Remember who won the election.
Michael Dukakis did a pretty good job of making a statement. Remember who won the election.
Bill Clinton won - twice- and both times against decorated WWII veterans whose credentials absolutely no one questioned. This, even though the GOP tried for all they were worth to paint him as a draft dodging commie sympathizer".
He did it by running as a "new Democrat", not an "old school" liberal.
He defined the "new Democrat" as believing in self-responsability, tough against crime (very important), yet recognizing the importance of social safety nets, equality, and nations working together to achieve world peace.
Again, do we want to make a statement, or win elections?
Actually, this is a much needed debate. So long as we remain civil and objective, I would really like to see more comments on this.
Thanks for getting the ball rolling, Necco.
Terry
If most of the people
Are in the 'middle,' they don't need me. I will not vote for one more DLCer. I'm tired of being lied to by tired old politicians whose only lot in life is to look out for themselves, while they profess to look out for others.
If I wanted to continue to be lied to, I'd vote GOP.
Those ain't democrats in the 'middle.'
One more thing...
Clinton won by his own devices. Don't believe me? Name his DLC successor and tell me where the DLC was when President Clinton was being impeached. I know where the liberals were, by gawd.
Let's see. Gore was DLC - nope, he wasn't president.
Kerry was DLC - nope, he wasn't president.
I'm scratching my head, here.
Also, would it be too much to ask, for you to explain to me why it is that where Congress is concerned, we have also lost power since the whole DLC thing was dreamed up? I'd appreciate it.
I think it's very interesting that in the past month, I had linked to the membership roster at the DLC and it worked just fine. Now it doesn't work at all. I dunno if it's me, or if they've removed that search function, but I suspect that the latter is the case. That means that even the DLC sees the writing on the wall, and that's the most thick-headed group since the GOP rolled down the pike.
We'll win again when the DLC
We'll win again when the DLC gets out of the way and a real democrat is nominated, instead of one of those republican lite war hawk idiots.
It is entirely possible for someone to have been against the war, at least the way Bush and company waged it, but still recognize that if we pull out now Iran, through Iraq, will be exporting more terrorists than Afghanistan.
While the war is front page news, as it should be, there are still more issues that trouble the American public.
Education: The present Administration appears to be trying to wreck our public school system. We need new ideas. Under the old system, passing students who were failing because it "would hurt their self-esteem to fail" was producing graduates who could barely read or write. I tutor at a community college in Missouri, and I work with High School grads every day who can't add or subtract without a calculator, and need SpellCheck to write a one page report.. Unfortunately, the GOP have painted "liberals" as the cause of this. I would like to continue further with this issue, because it's one I deal with on a daily basis, but that would make this post far too long.
Crime: A real biggie. The people I talk to, every survey I read, and most columns I read, indicate more Americans are afraid of being victimized by a street thug than by a foreign terrrorist. Here again, the GOP propoganda machine points to years of congressional control by us and an ever increasing gang and crime rate, and connect the two. Here again; Clinton recognized this and vowed to put thousands more police on the streets of the US (this is generally viewed as conservative, because the conservatives have successfully brainwashed the general public into believing this is their issue. We need to take this issue back, but I hear few of our people talking about this.). What the conservatives forget to mention is that congress can do very little as far as the crime on our city streets are concerned. That's a local issue. They can, however, earmark a percentage of revenue share to be aimed at crime reduction. But it's very difficult to earmark revenue for crime reduction when the president, with the help of congress itself, continues to reduce the amount of revenue it collects in the first place.
This is only a couple of the issues that, somehow, gets sidelined. The list is too long to go on with on this one post, but one other important issue is Social Security. On the old Democrat Meetup board, I posted a thought on Social Security back in May. I may go through my saved documents and see if I still have it and re-post it here.
As far as the DLC goes; it can stay, evaporat, or turn Green or Libertarian for all I care. I don't pay much attention to the DLC anyway. The DNC is a different story.
Terry
Ain't gonna be no surge
in terrorism breeding grounds if the US gets its nose out of the business of other countries and tends to its own.
IMO, the best and most effective way to battle terrorism is free. Keep our asses at home, and out of countries that don't want us mucking around where they live.
It's that simple.
Found it
I said in an earlier post that I'd posted an opinion on Social Security on the old Democrat Meetup site, and that I'd check to see if I could find it. I found it. I had broken the post down for space, because it was much too long.
In the first post, I suggested raising the ceiling for Social Security to about $120,00/yr or so, and raising the amount an individual could deposit in an IRA from the present $2000/yr to, say, $3500/yr.
After about an hour of thinking, I posted the following:
------------------------------------
I've been doing some thinking about the message I posted earlier - concerning raising the ceiling of earnings subject to Social Security tax, and raising the ceiling of the amount an individual may deposit into an IRA. To begin with, I suggested taxing incomes up to $100,000. Recall that the trust fund executors are saying that cuts of approximately 27% will have to be made around 2041, IF NOTHING is done now. If that is the case, then raising the ceiling should put the system in good shape for several years after 2041. If, 35 or 40 years from now the powers that be decided the ceiling needed to be raised again, that would be their perogative.
HOWEVER:
Assume that someone 25 began putting $3000/yr in as IRA. And retired at 68.
That's 43 years. By my calculations, that's $129,000, without interest. Even at an average of 2% compounded annually, we could be talking a sum around $300,000. Not exact, but close enough.
Now, if legislation were passed that, at the age of 68, the IRA automatically became a fifteen year based annuity - (a fifteen year based annuity, not necessarily a flat 15 year annuity) - that would pay $20,000 per year. And continue to gain interest as it was paid out. Meaning that at the end of 15 years, the annuity would continue to pay until it was exhausted. This would be - important point - ALONG WITH Social Security. That figures to be just over $1600/month- again - ALONG WITH Social Security. NOT instead of. Futher assume that Social Security benefits were reduced $100/month for every $400/month paid by the annuity. In this case, the reduction would be $400/month. If this applied to, say, 5 million people, that would amount to, what, 2 billion a month saved in Social Security. Ofcourse there would need to be a minimum payment set to ensure that all elderly citizens could expect some form of retirement benefit.
The figures I'm using are based on today, who knows what the interest will be like 20 or 30 years from now, and so what the actual payout may be.
And if the owner of the IRA should die before the IRA is depleted, the balance could go to the IRA's of his/her heirs.
Admittedly, this is a very quickly thought-up plan. There are bound to be problems with it, and I'm not offering it as an actual solution. Just an example. If I can come up with this in one day, certainly our party leaders, who have economists and financial minds at their disposal, should be able to come up with something.
And folks, while Bush's plan does indeed continue to be looked at more and more suspiciously, we are being looked at more an more critically for offering nothing.
-------------------------------------
Since that time, Social Security has just about faded from the scene of issues, but we can't afford to let people forget that the GOP tried its best to wreck the program, and keep reminding them of this often.
Terry
Leave SSI alone
The dopes in DC (the majority of them) voted for a sham of a war. They're not intelligent enough to touch SSI.
Maybe we agree on something
Basically, outside of raising the ceiling on SSI, and increasing the allowable deferrment amount for IRA's, that's about what I said. leave it just the way it is.
But not everyone in Washington voted for the war, and some of those who did vote for it expected it to be waged quite differently from the way it was. In Afghanistan, we let the Afghan people take back their own country with our backing. There were enough groups, both in and out of Iraq, that wanted Saddam out that I suspect we could have approached Iraq the same way, if at all.
But we have been told so many lies now that unless someone actually has access to the reports that were used then (and now even those very reports have been proven to have been falsified), we really don't know what the truth is. And that's the really troubling, and in fact down-right sinister, part of this situation.
We may always be left to believe whatever we individually choose to believe without ever knowing the real truth.
Terry
It is the "new" Democrats
It is the "new" Democrats that have handed our Party over to the comporate pimps, and the PNAC neocons. It is the self-proclaimed DLC "leadership" that has taken away the Democratic primary process from the real grass roots Democrats.
Even Bill Clinton disavowed the DLC near the end of his second term. I don't believe that there is very much debate required on the DLC -- they are nothing more than Republican-lite corporate whores, and do not represent Liberal Democrats.
If the word "Liberal" bothers you, you have been taken in by the Rovian spin on the concept. This country was founded on Liberal principles: fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and the belief that the Constitution applies to ALL Americans. The neocons and their DLC "new" Democrat centrist enablers are trying to roll back all of the advances of the New Deal.
Remember
when fellatio was considered a threat to national survival? haha, what a comedy that was. Now THIS, this is SERIOUS. Give us back the comedy, please.
GW Bush
Submarine USS Wahoo ss238
When are they going to stop calling him the "War" President
He is not a war President, he is a coward.
During the Monroe Presidency we had the "Era of good feelings"
During the GW Bush Presidency we have the.........
"ERA OF TERRA"
I would suggest that when
I would suggest that when someone wishes to push a “moderate” platform they not use the word and simply make the suggestions. So too with a “liberal” platform. This needed be always done, but I’m tired of hearing moderate ideas that are liberal and liberal ideas that are simply factually true.
To state that pulling out of Iraq as Murtha suggested is a Liberal idea is odd. It is a reasoned position stemming, in part, from where morality lies: the human heart. The risk to life and limb of OTHERS is too great for the what it gains US. (And that is assuming one does not argue it actually hurts us.) This used to be championed by conservatives. To use these labels now however is to perpetuate partisanship not American dialogue.
Perhaps I misworded myself
Jim, I didn't mean to imply that a timed, cautious withdrawal is strictly liberal. That, in fact is sensible. But an outright, pure and complete gung-ho withdrawal, it seems to me, simply would leave a void that may not be filled by the most desirable of elements.
However, a continued military presence the size we have now perpetuates the concept of occupation (propagandized as oppression) that will work against both our military and the new Iraqi government.
Like everyone else, I would like to see our troops come home as soon as possible.
But until the Iraqi forces can successfully defend their country and maintain some semblance of law and order, we are now in the position of having to have some sort of contingency force in the area for quite some time to come.
But let's not forget who bought this situation about. It wasn't the "liberals", nor the "moderate liberals" nor the "centerists". the blame for this situation can be placed entirely on one party.
and that party isn't ours.
Terry
Conservatives primarily, and
Conservatives primarily, and Liberals in part, need to apologize to the Troops.
All of these friggin arguments I hear about the War and why we went and why we should stay have nothing to do with what we told the Troops and their families. THEY are fighting. THEY need to be apologized to regardless if someone works to keep them their for various other reasons.
The Troops were told to invade to rid the U.S. of Saddam’s WMD imminent threat.
IS THIS A LIBERAL POSITION
IS THIS A LIBERAL POSITION OR A CONSERVATIVE ONE:
Citizens, via the voting booth, should take money from Winners and give it to Losers.
Circuits overloaded
Everything.....going....dark. Can't breathe..... Dave...?
;)
;)
Jim...
Not quite sure I understand what you mean.
Terry
I think he means to ask
I think he means to ask whether the statement is a Liberal position, or a Conservative one.
How do you define "Winners" and "Losers?"
Define them as the Right
Define them as the Right does:
Winners=those who are making gobs of money and moving up the ladder.
Lossers=those who are not.
Ah, but the "moral" position
Ah, but the "moral" position would define them as:
Winners=those who support themselves and their families honestly.
Losers=those who support themselves by stealing from the Winners.
What does morality have to
What does morality have to do with Conservatives?
That just will not do.
Oops...my bad.
Oops...my bad.
I am taking all the Right
I am taking all the Right Wing Nonsense head on. I understand how people cower to the noise machine, but have found that perhaps conversation about the very crux of debates can lead us further than the Left/Right divide has. In particular I have found that the Right is bullshitting about their Economic views and the Left needn’t cower, even within the context of the Right’s arguments. You just have to move right to the axioms used.
I have also found that the very axioms which lead one to Free Enterprise indicate that the Right violates them whilst the Left can embrace them. If Free Enterprise is the axioms that support it and not the name the Right has given to its brand, that is.
Jim, I agree, provided I understand you correctly.
One of the politicians I honestly believed in, the late Paul Tsongas, said during his campaign against Clinton, "People cannot have jobs without employers. And employers cannot afford to hire people if their profits are taken in taxes.". Indeed, free enterprise is the backbone of our economy and our way of life.
However, is it not fair to expect those who profit from our society to also shoulder a portion of responsibility for the upkeep of that society. And the more our society adds to their prosperity, then the greater their portion of responsibility?
I believe that how one answers this is what separates the "left" from the "right". I'm sure I'll hear if someone disagees, but this is straying into philosophy, which is fine, but I'm not sure this is what RegAv had in mind when he originally started this thread.
Terry
I am going further (or
I am going further (or sideways). I am saying that Right Wing Super Capitalist believe in going to the voting booth and ganging up on financial Winners so as to give to financial losers. They are doing what Liberals do elsewhere, BUT claiming they are pure as the driven snow with respect to the Winner Take All Myth.
Liberals must drive this point home throughout the USA. People must be made to see that Liberal and Conservative Economics are of the same kind. Though they differ in scope. I have chosen the nomenclature: Conservatives establish Aristocracy whilst Liberals believe in an expansive middle class.
I am within days of posting a new thread on MYTHS in the form of near sound bites. In the meantime I am hoping to pick up a few more points –and will give credit where it is due.
Where do Republicans take from Winners to give to losers?
In answering this question I believe we are able to knock Republicans off their self made pedestal. It will then simply be a question of whether the voters want Aristocracy or a Middle Class and NOT hands off voting yourself a better life. After all, EVERYONE does it and there are good philosophical and moral reasons for it. (And again, EVERYONE does it, including Libertarians.)
Jim,
while I may agree with your basic tenet, a great many issues will decide the outcome of almost any election.
I totally agree that the middle class is on the endangered species list, and a good many Americans do indeed lose sleep worrying about thier jobs and income. But there are other issues out there that are troubling an equal number of people.
As I said in an earlier post, more Americans fear being victimized by street thugs than by foreign terrorists. And the GOP have taken great pains to paint themselves as the "law and order" party; while painting Democrats as caring more about the criminal's rights than the victims'. If we can dispel this myth, it would level the playing field noticibly.
Education: another biggie. The GOP seems to have literally waged war on public schooling and seem to be blaming teachers for the dismal performance of some public schools. I can tell you for a truthful and honest fact that in a great many inner-city schools in this country, teachers quite literally put their lives in danger to try and teach.
Social Security seems to have faded into the background as an issue, but we shouldn't let voters forget who tried to wreck the program.
The exportation of jobs, tied to the point you're making. Good paying jobs are disappearing at an ever increasing pace. The conservatives are quick to point out that good paying new jobs are constantly being created. What needs to be pointed out is that as soon as those procedures or systems are worked out and functioning correctly, they are exported and the people who were hired are laid off.
Health care: A frightening number of people have no health care at all. Not for themselves or their children. In the richest country in the world, this is unforgivable.
The environment: I won't even get started on this one. This, and animal rights are my issues of choice, and I am so far on the left I make Howard Dean look conservative (no disrespect intended for Mr. Dean, the reference being made only to emphasize my own position here).
Terry
Well, I think the Democratic
Well, I think the Democratic Party is the Party of Economics first. Allowing the vast majority a decent living of their choice. At the moment I am concentrating on that. If you track my posts you will find that I am Greener than Green with respect to your “issues of choice” though even their I frame some arguments as Economic ones.
With respect to some of the other topics you speak of they are smokescreens by the Right in order to keep people’s income down so as to keep the Aristocracies up. Calling it as such has allowed me to reach some conservatives who now cock their heads when they hear some of these issues being pounded to death. Just tell people: We will never agree on Religion but perhaps we can agree on wages?
Health Care I will tie into my Economics post to come.
On crime I have posted before that the Right’s technique is to continually frame things from a birds eye view and then let the Left answer back from earth. The populace seems to miss what is happening. I used this example before: In Dirty Harry when Harry presses his foot into the wound of a serial rapist/murderer in order to extract information MOST people are all for it. Within the political arena you then get some supposed Liberal claiming that it is wrong to torture. The problem is, if arguments from the heart like that, are Liberal, they are only a small part of what American Liberalism has to offer. The proper response is that torture in that case (from a birds eye view where you KNOW he is really the rapist/murderer because you watched the movie and you KNOW that the information you get is going to ONLY lead to trying to save the girl –buried alive in the move) is to nearly everyone –if they are honest- reasonable. The problem is that is not life. We do not torture because it does not lead to good things. We do not torture because some Conservative Parent is going to be picked up and have their teeth pulled out by pliers when their only crime was looking like somebody. If you are god, go ahead. Long ago, the American Justice system found that treating monsters civilly forced them and their cohorts to, on average, behave civilly in trying to navigate the system. That is a good thing as it leads to FEWER raped and murdered children.
I will say it again, however, that as a Liberal with a compassionate heart, if I found someone raping or murdering my loved ones I would tear their head off and shit down their neck. Then I’d get mad.
I should also add that
I should also add that Democrats need to speak about WHY we follow a Free Enterprise system. Only then do you get past the MYTHS of the Right. Only then does one see the role of WE THE PEOPLE in making sure those reasons are met and not simply paid lip service to via spouting the name (Free Enterprise) we gave those reasons.
Terry, I think too
Terry,
I think too that what is happening on this blog is two fold and you are arguing in only one vein either correctly or incorrectly. The blogs second goal is to make its contribution to changing the frame, changing the culture, and injecting new arguments.
Jim
Okay I'll give my answer. It
Okay I'll give my answer.
It is BOTH a Liberal AND Conservative view!
Why?
(I am hoping to add to the examples I have found and will give due credit.)