Presidential Aide for a Day
I was just reading an AP story about Bush’s new Chief of Staff, Joshua Bolten. It talks about his task of putting together a new team for the President.
One of the jobs that are already open is domestic policy advisor. I am not exactly sure what a domestic policy advisor does, but if I had to guess I would say that person advises the president on domestic policy.
If you were the president’s domestic policy advisor, what would you suggest the president set as his domestic policy goals?
What, if anything, do you think the president can do domestically to turn around his abysmal approval ratings?
**Here is the link to the story I was reading. I have to note that it is kind of poorly written. Unless I am totally blind and missed it, the article does not name Bolten by his first name. It just jumps right in to calling him Bolten. Weird.
27 comments:
Resign.
I'm shocked that you would want Dick Cheney for president.
-Protect the borders.
-Boot the illegal aliens.
-Eliminate the Dept of Education & Dept of Agriculture (including all farm subsidies)
-Push for a flat tax of 17% (starting at 24k/yr) (Then abolish the IRS)
-Pay off the national debt with the money saved by eliminating the above departments.
-Eliminate all tariffs on foriegn goods.
-Eliminate the minimum wage.
-Explain to illegal aliens that the only thing they are really entitled to here is a free trip back to Mexico.
-Explain to Democrats that courting illegal aliens and felons is not a sign of a healthy political party!
I don't think anything will turn Bush's ratings around. It seems like somewhere in a president's second term, people just get sick of him. I know I am.
Plus, people don't seem to realize the scope and duration of the war on terror. It's really just begun. Like Iraq should be able to have a completely new form of government and be able to protect itself from it's enemies (which pretty much surround them) especially a soon to be nuclear Iran, in just a couple years!
It doesn't help that Democrats have tried to manufacture problems for Bush since before he took office in 2000.
President Cheney. I like the sound of that!
Bush took office in 2001, not 2000.
First, go on the offensive on the healthcare debate. Keep pointing out that the reason health insurance is so expensive is because of excessive government regulation, not because insurance companies are inherently evil as the Democrats would have you believe.
Advocate passage of H.R. 4662, which would allow individuals to purchase insurance anywhere in the US, not just the state they live in. This could save hundreds to thousands of dollars per month for families that live in a highly regulated state like Vermont.
Cheney for President?????? Not only is the man a walking heart attack, but he is as guilty as Bush as far as the lunacy known as the war in Iraq, and probably soon to be Iran. The only thing the man knows about is lying to the American public, and getting this country into what will probably be a series of wars that will get more and more American KIDS killed. Oh yeah, how about more innocent civillians who are caught in the middle of this administrations goal to take over the flipping world.
Good Lord, Bush does need a domestic advisor because he doesn't know jack poo about taking care of his own people. Gas prices are up, the rich are getting richer, health insurance costs are out of control, and civil rights are going straight down the proverbial toilet. How about getting someone in that position who has more than an IQ of Bush? (Oh wait, how about my cat? She only kills things that are a threat to her, and she is more intelligent than Bush!!)
WHEW!!! I think my case of writer's block has been cured!!!
Fells
As my new domestic policy advisor Charity said, the reason health insurance is so expensive is because of excessive government regulation, not because insurance companies are inherently evil as the Democrats would have you believe. Nor is it because I have a lower IQ than your cat.
What's so bad about the rich getting richer? Don't you want to get richer? I know I do.
Can't we all just get richer?...Or is that "get along"?...Oh, nevermind!
I still remembder Mike Dukakis's go-to sound bite like it was yesterday.
The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer, and those in the middle, and that means most of us, are being squeezed.
In 1988 he said that enough times to make you puke.
Ok, how about the poor and middle class becoming richer too??
That would make it harder to recruit soldiers. Keeping a permanent underclass ensures a certain number of volunteers.
Somebody get me some more COKE or I'll blow up the F*ckin' World!!!
I thought Mike Dukakis' soundbyte was
...son of a Greek immigrant!
He beat that one to death too.
He would have made a worse president than Jimmy Carter, if that's possible.
Fells, you either have a wimpy cat that is threatened by mice and birds, or a real badass thats taking on the dogs!
Just think, as dumb as you liberals say Bush is, he still manages to outsmart the Democrats!
I have a lot of problems with Bush. For starters, he's too liberal!
Bring the troops home. Tax according ability to pay. Resign. Then he can go destroy an oil company or a baseball team.
"Fells, you either have a wimpy cat that is threatened by mice and birds, or a real badass thats taking on the dogs!"
Huh? You mean those are the options for president? If so- think of it this way-
Iraq is a bird that Bush was so frightened of he shot it in the face. North Korea is a mouse he's afraid to talk to face to face.
China is a dog and nobody's taking it on.
Carter was a really good president. He had an energy policy.
Bush is the worst president ever. "Too liberal." -Pleaze! If "liberal" means whacked out of you mind on drugs, then I agree.
Thanks for putting some ideas out there anon.
What does "Tax according ability to pay" exactly mean? We already have a graduated income tax system and with the earned income credit, many people are not paying any taxes. By that I mean, they get a refund of any money that was withheld from their paychecks.
The problem with shifting even more of the tax burden onto a few people is that the government will never be held accountable for spending. If it's not your money, why care?
I think we should all have to pay at least a small amount of income taxes. That way, we would all have an interest in holding spend-happy politicians accountable.
Why is it that if the "rich" are getting richer, you think the rest of us can't get richer? Is there a limited pool of wealth that they are drying up?
How is someone else getting richer, stopping you from getting richer? If all the rich folk suddenly became poor tomorrow, how would that improve your income stream?
I'm not trying to pick on you, Fells, I'm just trying to get you to think about it this way for a minute.
I do not understand this line of reasoning, which is so often tossed about around these parts. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.
"Huh? You mean those are the options for president? If so- think of it this way-"
I was referring to this from Fells: " how about my cat? She only kills things that are a threat to her".
Cats hunt and kill mice, birds, etc., which really aren't a threat to them. It was a lighthearted comment.
It's true that China is a threat, and there is no doubt that they have superpower ambitions. Are you suggesting we fight them? I used to think that was a real possibility for the future, but now I think their gradual acceptance of the free market makes war unlikely. This doesn't mean they aren't a threat though. They're playing a game of geopolitical Go with us. If they win, they will be the top dog and we won't realize it until it's too late, which may be sooner than we think. They are educated, ambitious and focused on very specific goals. Just yesterday I was reading interviews with two of the leading Linux software developers there. Since they joined the WTO, they now have to comply with software licensing laws (to Microsoft, etc.), so now they are working on creating all their own software (which is a government mandate that will be gradually instituted). Basically, they are looking within first, then entertaining foreign possibilities. They have developed massive manufacturing capabilities in the last 15 years and impressive IT capabilities in the last 10 years. They are a country with a mission. We, on the other hand, seem to be browbeaten by illegal aliens from Mexico yelling in our streets! Damn this liberal self-doubting.
"Carter was a really good president. He had an energy policy. " That's brilliant! If only all the presidents since Carter had thought about having an energy policy!!!
Let's see, price caps on gasoline leading to an artificial shortage in 1979. That's a great policy! 1978 has the second highest oil production year at that time, but in the US there were lines around the corner to buy gas.
Liberals have a problem with Bush's energy policy because he consulted with heads of oil companies and didn't waste time with the folks from the Sierra Club!! Oh no, they cried, he's beholden to special interests! What they were really saying was that he was beholden to the WRONG special interest! Incidentally, price caps and overzealous environmental policies are what caused the rolling blackouts in California, which Bush used as a springboard for his energy policy. Environmentalist have themselves to thank for that one.
""Too liberal." -Pleaze! If "liberal" means whacked out of you mind on drugs, then I agree "
By 'too liberal' I mean things like the prescription drug plan for senior citizens and his unwillingness to enforce immigration laws and even to consider amnesty for illegal aliens.
I agree generally re: China. And no, I don't think they should fight them. We'd lose a conventional war HARD and nuclear war is unthinkable. Everyone would lose that. China is the world's superpower now. It's later than you think.
I think it was OPEC's embargo that caused gas lines in the 70s and not price caps, but it's a moot point. Carter's gone.
I agree the perscription drug thing was bad. It's basically a 40 Billion dollar give-away to drug companies so they can keep us hooked on their junk. The government and the drug companies are a bunch of pushers.
On immigrants we totally disagree. They should get amnesty. Reagan did it. Bush should too. American citizenship is a blessing and it should be shared with as many people as possible.
You say 'boot 'em and seal the border' but that's fantasy. Short of becoming a totally fascist police state, there's no way to get that done. Do you want us to be a totally fascist police state?
You know how I feel about immigration: Let everyone in. Give them citizenship. Give them healthcare. Teach in Spanish. F*ck the "minute men." But, hey- that's just me.
The OPEC embargo was in 1973. That was a real shortage (at least from our perspective, the Arabs had plenty of oil). The 1979 one was caused by Carter's price caps. It's funny that Hawaii put in price caps last year, but they don't take effect until later this year (or next year, I think). The politicians were smart in that regard. They have a year or more for people to forget what they did, but they got to make a lot of noise about how they were helping the little guy (a la Bernie Sanders).
I don't like the prescription drug bill because it will cost taxpayers billions. Also, it forced a huge expansion of government and took away senior citizens' choice of how they want to purchase their drugs. Many had insurance, but now they are forced to look to the government for their care (unless they want to buy them out of pocket, which very few can afford).
The problem with granting amnesty to illegal aliens and opening the borders is that it will cheapen and quickly destroy what it is to be an American. The illegals who were protesting during the last few weeks didn't look too interested in becoming Americans. In fact, they were talking about 'reclaiming' New Mexico. Any group that enters a country to reclaim territory is called an invader. If you opened the borders it would be a free for all with a mad rush to get as many of your kind in to increase your influence. We'd look more like Yugoslavia did than a unified country, with ethnic groups living clustered in different areas of the country. A very dangerous situation, but at least we'd have the Diversity liberals cherish so much (or say they do)
A country without borders isn't a country at all. Do people who believe this feel the same way about their own property borders? I wonder how Ted Kennedy would feel about me crossing the 'arbitrary border' in Hyannis that marks his property? Probably a little differnt than he says he feels about Mexicans crossing the southern border!
Also, rounding up and sending the majority of illegals back to Mexico wouldn't be too difficult. And it wouldn't take a police state to do it. Simply go to where they are known to gather to be picked up for day work and take them into custody. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out where they are working. You could also pick them up at emergency rooms and whenever they are arrested. That would take care of at least half of them right there.
Here's another problem I don't think many who are calling for amnesty and citizenship have though about: if they become citizens, they will no longer be cheap labor! Employers will have to pay them at least minimum wage, or risk being turned in by a newly minted and pissed off Mexican American. And from the attitude we saw during last week's protests, they wouldn't be too shy about making demands.
"Here's another problem I don't think many who are calling for amnesty and citizenship have though about: if they become citizens, they will no longer be cheap labor! Employers will have to pay them at least minimum wage..."
A-HA! (Of course we've thought about that.)
"A-HA! (Of course we've thought about that.)"
Just not very hard, apparently.
This is a debate within y'all's party between the corporatists and the xenophobes. Have at it.
"Have at it."
Translation: "you've gone over my head, I give."
The immigration conundrum is over my head. That's true.
Hey, I heard that the Minutemen are planning on building their own wall on the border. Apparently have permission from landowners to do it.
Power to the people!!
BTW, not wanting people to enter the country illegally does not make one a xenophobe.
"BTW, not wanting people to enter the country illegally does not make one a xenophobe."
That's true. I wasn't talking about you Bob. I was afraid you might think that.
If the minute men are trying to build a wall, I think that's great. Good luck to them.
They might as well try to build a bridge to the moon, but if they have permission from owners of border land, then let them try.
Post a Comment