Should the People who Put Bush II in office pay for the debt he has incurred?

Should Bush Junior the debt, nearly 5 trillion dollars, that junior and his Republican Congress added to the national debt be paid for by those who voted for them?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure - and they are. Along with everyone else, though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why should those who did not vote for him or support him and his minions have to pay for their debts? And I don't think that all of those who supported him are paying anything extra for this debts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Has it occured to you that you are suggesting the impossible???

 

no, why ? because a lot of them (like String), have changed their minds.

Bush was decieving at first, and people don't change leaders in the middle of a war, no matter how bad he's doing, they didn't for churchill, and neither for Menzies.

 

Joe, you're a smart and passionate person, I like you a lot.
This thread is inflammatory, sorry.

Now consider that Bush ran on a set of issues that didn't include war profiteering and whatever else you suspect him of.
Reforming the middle east wasn't what got him in. It was the platform of smaller government, lower taxes,family values and pro-life issues.

Now, everyone knows politicians are liars, but it goes on record, what wins elections (and what happens when you stray from your constituents interests).

 

At the very least they could stop referring to the democrats as the tax and spend party. There seem to be two of those.

 

Thanks Clusteringflux for the kind words, and the feeling is mutual. I started the threat because I am growing a wee frustrated with those diehard supporters of the Republican Party who refuse to exercise critical thinking regardless of what the party does or does not do.

I can give some slack to someone voting for junior the first time. But by 2004 his track record should have been well known to voters.

I am also thinking that part of the problem with our democracy is that there is no voter accountability. If voters were more accountable for the results of their votes perhaps they would give more thought to who they are voting for and why. Perhaps they may cast more responsible votes if they were more accountable for their vote...perhaps they would do a little research on the cannidates rather than just voting on the emotion of the moment...carefuly rendered to them by the last commercial or set of commericals.

 

Thanks Read, but this is not about if it is possible, but rather a moral question. Should voters bear greater responsibilty for the their votes? Would such a system yeild better elected officials?

 

Even from a moral standpoint it would be unworkable - if you're suggesting such a thing should be put into practice. For example, just who is going to be the judge that decides the elected president is completely to blame for everything that went wrong? Or even what percentage of it? Shouldn't we also then apply the same system to those serving in congress? And on and on and on.

Let's just deal with it as we always have - by voting the individual out that we think is responsible. It's not a perfect system by any means and only takes effect after the fact. But it's far better than the nightmare you seem to be suggesting. I honestly believe you don't see what a quagmire would result from that.

 

I just hope some of the 2nd term Bush voters learned a lesson.

 

How about those who gave the power of the purse to the Democrats in 2006, ever since the Democrats took over Congress the price of oil went through the roof, along with rising prices for everything else.

There wasn't a change in the price of oil, until the President announce his lifting of the Drilling band on the OCS.

That was the major event that broke the bubble.

 

Well if you wanted a practical solution, it would go something like this:

- Create Systems of Metrics : This is not an easy task but it would consist of

* National Debt
* S&P. Russel 2000 and Dow
* Expected Increase In Debt

Any additions to national debt would be allocated to those who voted for canidates based on income...sliding scale and done on an annual basis. This would be done until the president leaves office...exception being if 2/3 of both political parties in houe and Sentate allow for an exception.

Improvements in S&P, Russell and Down could be used to offset some of the spending liability. If you carry it down to the Congress it gets more complex. But to do this you would have to create a vote reporting methodolgy that does not exist today.

But again the issue is should voters bear more direct responsibility for their votes? I think if voters were more accountable they would exercise better judgement. I think elected officials should be held to a standard as well. They need a metric and reward system that puts more money in their pocket than do the special interests. That is one reason juniors administration is so fractured, because it is catering to so many special interests it does not have a coherent policy.

 

Buffalo you know, that the budget the Democrats inherited was huge because of the Republican commitment to the war in Iraq and because of the additional entitlement spending obligations cast on to the government by the Republicans.

And when the Democrats tried to reduce the additional entitlement spending in 2007, it was stopped in the Sentate by the Republicans. The Democrats do not hold a majority in the Senate. Democrats have 50 votes out of 101 votes in the Senate and there is one Independent vote who sometimes votes for and sometimes against the Democrats. And that Independent is now supporting McCain and there is talk of making him a Republican Vice Presidential Cannidate this year. In any case the Democrats do not have a majority of the seats in the Senate.

 

And what would you do to people who don't vote in this crazy world of yours?

 

They don't have any liabilty other than what we already have. Conversely, if a candidate was succesful those that voted for him or her would have a lower tax liability. They would get to share the savings.

 

Too much room for confusion. Most people today already don't understand how our systems work and politicians will feel very comfortable exploiting that. Presidents who inherit the unavoidable problems caused by temporary solutions of previous administrations, and the voters who voted for them, will be hurt by your idea.

 

joepistole, you know, that the budget the Democrats inherited was huge because it included all the spending of the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson and every Democratic social rescue scheme, the Democrats, commitment us to, so they could buy votes, to try and stay in power from 1962 to present.

We are still paying off those budgets, and the Democrats are responsible and the Republicans share the Blame.

That all of the supposed savings in our Budgets were projections, in out years, and that Congress spent money faster than our ability to raise the money.

This war in Iraq is because of Jimmy Cartes policies on Iran in the 70tys, and Slick Billy Clinton's failure to deal effectively with Terrorism in the 90tys, and because of the additional entitlement spending obligations cast on to the tax payers by the Democrats.

The War and Defence of the Nation, is actually one of the Constitutional responsibilities of the Government, the Social Welfare Programs are not.

The Democrats with their anti-drilling stance cost the Country 700 Billion dollars every year, four time the Cost of the Iraqi war.

So who is to blame for our massive deficits?

There is more than enough blame for the Democrats, and the Republicans, and it has nothing to do with the War.

 

In truth everyone should get at least some classes of politics in school with a exam and only those who pass should be allowed to vote. A really simple exam tough I believe all have the right to vote, if however they have at least a basic ID of what they are voting for.

 

Used to be that to be able to vote in this Country you had to own Property, that kept the buying of votes, by redistribution of wealth, from affecting the elections.