Jack, up till now we have seen 9 Democrats jockeying for the position of front runner. They have a different criteria, they are interviewing for a job that they have never held. George, however, has nearly completed his four year term. Shouldn't people know if they're happy or not with the status quo?

I'm not sure if I understand the term "decry" as used in your post. Are you saying Republicans support NAFTA so there's no need to repeal it? Just looking for clarification.

As far as the President spending our money, I refer to an earlier comment about the Republican President AND Congress. He may not have the final say, but he sure has had some expensive suggestions, like our trillion dollar prescription drug plan to name one. Obviously, we can't blame George for all the lost jobs, but has he done anything to slow down the mass exidus of jobs since he's been in office?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jskufan
Yesterday I was watching the national news when they announced that George Bush was getting ready to unleash his $100,000,000 re-election campaign and I was thinking, "What's wrong with this picture". He has the most "visible" occupation in the world and after 3.5 years of well documented performance, if the country was happy with him, he shouldn't have to spend a nickel to get re-elected.

Good question: The quick answer is that the Democrats have had months to rail against GW, unopposed, while they gnawed each others' arms off in their primaries. Now that GW knows who his opponent will be, he can highlight the differences between Kerry and himself......and they're as big as Texas.

I would also like to make 2 points regarding previous posts:
1) I keep hearing Republicans criticizing NAFTA; why doesn't this Republican President or this Republican Congress repeal NAFTA if everyone is against it?
I haven't heard any Republican politicians rail against NAFTA, only Democrats. Can you cite me a source for your comment?

2) The President has a lot to do with our economic policies. Whether or not that was the original intention of our forefathers is irrelevant. They collect, spend, and allocate our tax money which has a huge impact on our economic well being. Also, political interventions like Iraq have a major impact on our economy from the outright costs to the psychological effect they can have on consumer spending. Finally, policies like NAFTA, or the trade agreements we make with countries like China all originate in Washington. Like it or not, the decisions they make, or don't make, have profound effects on our economy.

While I agree with some of the sentiment, there are a few factual errors in the above. The President doesn't collect, spend or allocate our tax money, the Congress does. The President submits a "suggested budget" and Congress distorts, tears, wrinkles, adjusts, corrupts, mutilates it as they see fit. Then, when it's returned to the President, unrecognizable, he can either sign it or be accused by the liberal press and Democrats of: a) being an obstructionist b) starving babies and Seniors c) spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave or d) all of the above.
The President also has no power to make trade agreements, that's another function of Congress. Again, he can use his bullypulpit to sway opinion, but he can't legally make binding treaties. (It's a good thing, too. When Gore came back to Congress with the Kyota Accord for them to ratify, they took one look at it and voted unanimously TO REJECT IT).

 

Not even Japan would ratify it.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jpsartre12

Quote:

Originally posted by jskufan
Yesterday I was watching the national news when they announced that George Bush was getting ready to unleash his $100,000,000 re-election campaign and I was thinking, "What's wrong with this picture". He has the most "visible" occupation in the world and after 3.5 years of well documented performance, if the country was happy with him, he shouldn't have to spend a nickel to get re-elected.

Good question: The quick answer is that the Democrats have had months to rail against GW, unopposed, while they gnawed each others' arms off in their primaries. Now that GW knows who his opponent will be, he can highlight the differences between Kerry and himself......and they're as big as Texas.

I would also like to make 2 points regarding previous posts:
1) I keep hearing Republicans criticizing NAFTA; why doesn't this Republican President or this Republican Congress repeal NAFTA if everyone is against it?
I haven't heard any Republican politicians rail against NAFTA, only Democrats. Can you cite me a source for your comment?

2) The President has a lot to do with our economic policies. Whether or not that was the original intention of our forefathers is irrelevant. They collect, spend, and allocate our tax money which has a huge impact on our economic well being. Also, political interventions like Iraq have a major impact on our economy from the outright costs to the psychological effect they can have on consumer spending. Finally, policies like NAFTA, or the trade agreements we make with countries like China all originate in Washington. Like it or not, the decisions they make, or don't make, have profound effects on our economy.

While I agree with some of the sentiment, there are a few factual errors in the above. The President doesn't collect, spend or allocate our tax money, the Congress does. The President submits a "suggested budget" and Congress distorts, tears, wrinkles, adjusts, corrupts, mutilates it as they see fit. Then, when it's returned to the President, unrecognizable, he can either sign it or be accused by the liberal press and Democrats of: a) being an obstructionist b) starving babies and Seniors c) spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave or d) all of the above.
The President also has no power to make trade agreements, that's another function of Congress. Again, he can use his bullypulpit to sway opinion, but he can't legally make binding treaties. (It's a good thing, too. When Gore came back to Congress with the Kyota Accord for them to ratify, they took one look at it and voted unanimously TO REJECT IT).

JP, I was referring to the obviously Republican members of this forum who keep bringing up NAFTA as if it's a Democratic issue. Granted it was signed in under Clinton's administration but again if it's that bad, why hasn't this administration repealed it? I wasn't accusing Republican politicians of criticizing NAFTA.

Secondly, If you read my later post, I clarified that I give our Republican Congress their "just due" as far as sharing responsibility for spending our tax dollars. Republicans have had control of the wallet now for 3.5 years.