A lot has already been said, and a lot of reasons have already been given; thusly, not all of these reasons are from my own hands. Of the first two, credit is given to MoveOn the full publication is available at: http://www.bushin30seconds.org/aboutbush.html. Therefore, credit of the first two belongs to them.
Per request (As some didn't think my 15 in 10 list was all that funny) I've cut off the first five reasons which can be found at MoveOn.org, I don't really care to Preach like Michael Moore or his advocates (pricks, they are indeed) but I felt those were valid points. I've made some which some agreed with, so I've kept all the other's for a total of 10. After election, the title will be changed to something other than what it is currently. Perhaps "Ten Reasons as to why George W. Bush was not re-elected" or "Ten Reasons why we shouldn't have re-elected George W. Bush" still thinking about it anyway...
Enjoy my fellow independent thinkers.
- 3.3 million jobs (93,000 in August of 2003 alone) have been lost since Bush took office--more than the last 11 Presidents combined.
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2001-August 2003) Meanwhile, huge corporations are paying fewer taxes than ever:
http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm
- Bush is under funding homeland security.
While energetic in waging war abroad, the Bush administration has been oddly lethargic in fortifying our defenses at home. Domestic security agencies have been neglected. Police and firefighters have been denied essential resources, and muddled public strategy has only spread alarm and confusion.
http://www.ppionline.org/
- Bush, Since 2001, has pushed further for the "Fiscal Federalism" that was started by Ronald Reagan.
Unfortunately, this program gives more discretion to state governments regarding the allocation and spending of their funds, while at the same time cutting back on federal programs to aid in construction, education, civic services, etc.
A side effect of this policy is unfunded mandates; Federal laws requiring states and/or local governments to provide specific services or enforce specification regulations without receiving additional federal money for said purposes. This makes the federal government appear as if it were addressing issues without raising taxes to cover the increased expense. (This makes them appear responsible, while not having to deal with the consequences of the actions). This, in essence, is federal aid in reverse.
George W. Bush's fiscal policy in this sector is largely to blame for the current fiscal crises of state and local governments.
- Bush's War In Iraq has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
In every war, innocents die; In the Iraq war, direct military intervention has resulted in the death of more than 10,000 innocent Iraq civilians. It's easy to throw around a number like 10,000. These are, of course, only reported numbers. Instead I present you a list of 3,029 confirmed and identified deaths of Iraqi civilians since September 12th, 2004. Did these people have to die? No. Could something have been done? Sure. Can something still be done? Of course. We can prevent the future deaths of thousands others, still the Bush Administration has yet to provide any financial assistance, or even an apology to the victim's families, not a single one. Of these 3029, 376 have died since the start of 2004. Acceptable? I hope not.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/names.htm
- More than 700 American Military Personnel have died In Combat since the beginning of the war (3/19/03)
Well.. 784 Military Personnel, to be exact. 673 were after "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03), 479 have died in combat after the Capture of Saddam, and 152 have died since the Hand over of the Iraq to their new government. One question I ask you, how many more have to die before we decide it's time to pull out?
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/index.php
- Bush Refuses to attend the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (or NAACP) convention.
Since Bush has taken office, he's rejected every single invitation to speak at the convention. He's the first president since Herbert Hoover to do this. Why would the president refuse to discuss or speak to the NAACP about civil issues in America? This is still a highly racial country, and any president who claims he's devoted to the people should take part in every major active civil event, especially the NAACP. Essentially, blowing off the NAACP is disrespectful, not just to the leaders of the civil rights movement, but to the black community as a whole.
Hopefully he's not refused to attend because blacks are prominently democratic.
- Bush supported the National Patients' Bill of Rights, then he doesn't, then he does... Which is it, Dubya?
While running for president in 2000, Bush said "I do support a national patients' bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas to get a patients' bill of rights through. We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage ... I don't want the law to supersede good laws like we've got in Texas."
But Wait! That's not all folks, as governor he vetoed the patients's bill of rights. The same one that he refers to above. He finally let the law pass, but he refused to sign it. Why Dubya?
Even more goodies surfaced. The Bush administration recently argued against this same patients' bill, procured by George himself, in a Supreme Court case that challenged the strength of the law. The Administration's briefing on the subject argued that allowing patients to sue their HMOs for wrongful denials of medical benefits costs the HMOs too much.
You just can't make this shit up. It just so happens that the court ruled in favor of the HMOs and the Bush administration.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040621_1483.html
- Poison them, it's cheaper that way.
It just so happens, in March of 2001, President Bush's EPA announced that it would withdraw the new standard for arsenic in drinking water in favor of an older standard established in 1942. The older standard cuts costs significantly for the mining industry and water suppliers.
The new standard (10 parts per billion, or ppb for short) was implemented during the Clinton administration after 10 years of testing and studies. One study in particular, authorized by congress, cost $7.5 Million total. An Independent report, by National Academy of Sciences in 1999, concluded that the 1942 standard of 50ppb could "easily" result in a 1/100 cancer risk and recommended that acceptable levels be lowered "as promptly as possible".
When bush made the decision to go back to the 1942 standard of 50ppb, he said: "At the very last minute, my predecessor made a decision, and we pulled back his decision so that we can make a decision based upon sound science and what's realistic." His EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, said the standard had not been based on the "best available science."
So let me get this straight, We know the new, more expensive standard protects people a lot more than the old, cheaper standard, but it might be overkill. So let's revert to the old standard, for which we know causes harm, while we spend years and millions more seeing if we can make a new standard that's not as adequate as the one implemented by the Clinton administration, but is cheaper overall, does that sound about right?
In October 2001, following a new NAS study concluding that the 10ppb standard was scientifically justified and possibly not low enough, the EPA finally adopted that standard. By this time, however, it was widely recognized that a 3 ppb standard (The lowest that EPA studied consider technically and economically feasible to achieve) would best safeguard consumers.
Studies now show that the 10ppb standard presents cancer risks 10 times higher than the level EPA considers acceptable in regulating other water contaminants.
How many people have to die, Dubya? We know there's a magic number you're searching for. Standards are put in place to keep people from suffering the consequences (like death) of no standard or insufficient ones.
David Corn, "The Other Lies of George Bush",
The Nation, September 25, 2003.
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_drinking.asp
- "...the illiteracy level of our children are appalling."
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004
Oh boy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040123-2.html
- Tax Law Omits Child Credit in Low-Income Brackets
In the summer of 2003, the Bush administration passed a bill that added a $400-per-child tax credit to middle- and upper-income families. However, in a last-minute change to the bill, the tax break was denied to families who earn just above minimum wage.
Over 6.5 million families, and 12 million children in households earning less than $26,625 a year, did not benefit from the administration's increased tax refunds.
Senator Blanche Lincion, the Arkansas Democrat who tried to extend the tax credit to low-income families, said: "I don't know why they would cut that out of the bill. These are the people who need it the most and who will spend it the most. These are the people who buy the blue jeans and the detergent and who will stimulate the economy with their spending."
The Federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, A few states do not have a minimum wage, most of those that do have one equal to the federal minimum. Regardless, it takes a job paying $12.81 per hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year to make over $26,625. That's working every bit of your 40 hours a week for a solid year. Don't be sick! Don't let your kids get sick! You wouldn't want to miss a days work, you'd lose that $400 a year for your kids, Shame shame!
How many families do you know of, where both mother and father are under the age of 25, that make more than a combined $26,625 a year?
I can't seem to name one, but I can name plenty of single mothers struggling to make ends meet raising their children, and earning less than $10 an hour.
Thoughtful, Bush. We love ya.
David Firestone, "Tax Law Omits Child Credit in Low-Income Brackets," New York Times, May 29, 2003.
"Dems, GOP Spar over tax cut provision", CNN, May 30, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/29/child.tax.credits/
http://www.cbpp.org/5-28-03tax3.htm
There was alot more here. One issue I do want to touch on (that ended up getting cut from the original list of the 15) is the No Child Left Behind Act. This was based upon George's "Texas Miracle" from the late 90's that ended up as a scandalous failure. It's still a failure. Bush has cut most of the funding from this very plan. Our dear noder Jet-Poop sent me a message and wished to say this:
"The 'No Child Left Behind' thing seems to be engineered to increase the number of schools that are designated as 'failing'. Basically, a school doesn't pass if it has a certain percentage of students who fail. And the percentage required to pass increases every year. Eventually, schools will be required to have 0% failing students, which is never going to happen. It's solely designed to let the GOP demonize public schools."
I can't help but agree with him. He managed to provide me with a link to an nytimes.com article, but it's registration only. If you have registration at nytimes (it's free) you can visit at this URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/education/05school.html
George W. Bush loves us, Honest.