Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 07, 2016, 04:05:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92563 Posts in 2300 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Gov. Jeb Bush
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Gov. Jeb Bush  (Read 3386 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13262


« Reply #50 on: September 10, 2015, 02:27:35 PM »

Imagine the economic boom from the continued waves of act of lovers swarming in, if Prince Jeb the Unready got into office.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #51 on: September 10, 2015, 05:23:48 PM »

The sisters do a Jeb!!!

http://www.diamondandsilkinc.com/vlog/2015/9/9/jeb-bush-presidental-run-is-putting-all-americans-to-sleep#commenting=
Logged

PPulatie
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2015, 08:16:32 PM »

Lol....Bush lied on his wife's influence regarding immigration views.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/trump-was-right-in-book-jeb-credits-his-wife-for-his-immigration-views/
Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35832


« Reply #53 on: September 22, 2015, 10:32:45 PM »

by Jeb Bush
Sept. 22, 2015 6:43 p.m. ET
WSJ

To understand what is wrong with the regulatory culture of the U.S. under President Obama, consider this alarming statistic: Today, according to the World Bank—not exactly a right-wing think tank—the U.S. ranks 46th in the world in terms of ease of starting a business. That is unacceptable.

Think what the U.S. could be and the prosperity we could have if we rolled back the overregulation that keeps us from ranking in the top 10. It wouldn’t just be easier to start a business. It would also be easier to find a job, get lifesaving medicine, get a loan, and see a doctor or health professional. Costs and prices would go down. The U.S. economy, stalled in the worst economic expansion since World War II, would be unleashed. Regulatory reform alone could add more than three percentage points to U.S. GDP by 2025.

Since January 2009, the Obama administration has mired America’s free market in a flood of creativity-crushing and job-killing rules. This administration has issued rules targeting banks, farms, medical offices, hospitals, credit unions, insurers, tanning and nail salons, power plants, factories, federal contractors, cars, trucks and appliances. And in perhaps its most shocking display of regulatory overreach, it is regulating the Internet as a public utility, using a statute written in the 1930s.

If you’re wondering why it’s hard to get a mortgage, why no new banks are opening up, why your power bill will be going up, why your health insurance costs more, why we don’t build new highways, why you can’t get medicines that are available in Europe, Barack Obama’s rules are a big part of the story.

These rules create a moat around America’s wealthiest and well-connected. They can afford to comply and absorb the costs. The burden of meeting the new rules’ requirements falls heaviest on everyone else through higher prices. And if a business can’t pass on the cost of new rules to consumers, it just cuts wages or jobs.

The increased cost of new regulations, in time and money, has been phenomenal. According to the American Action Forum, since Mr. Obama took office, new regulations have resulted in an additional 443 million hours of paperwork each year for Americans. All told, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 2015 report on the federal regulatory state, regulations impose a $1.88 trillion silent tax on the U.S. economy each year—that’s nearly $15,000 per family. For every second of his presidency, Mr. Obama has added roughly $3,100 in regulatory burdens to the economy.

It’s time we did a better job regulating the regulators. My goal as president would be to find and retire the rules that are posing a major obstacle to people who want to get a job, start a business, move up the income ladder or do anything else that contributes to the prosperity of this nation. If elected president, I will use my executive authority to direct agencies to create one dollar of regulatory savings for each new dollar of regulatory cost they propose. We will eliminate and reform outdated and burdensome rules and, when necessary, work with Congress and the courts to overcome legal obstacles that stand in the way of sensible savings.

My administration will create a commission charged with reviewing regulations from the perspective of the regulated and shifting more power from Congress back to states. In my administration, every regulation, including those issued by so-called independent agencies such as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, will have to satisfy a rigorous White House review process, including a cost-benefit analysis. Regulations will be issued only if they address a major market or policy failure. Regulators will be directed to favor private and state-driven solutions unless it is clear that federal intervention is necessary and appropriate.

My administration will also supercharge infrastructure projects by restructuring the permitting process for roads, highways, bridges, ports, pipelines, wind farms and other vital infrastructure projects. Permitting decisions will be made within two years instead of 10. And I will sign legislation to prevent frivolous litigation from endlessly tying up federal infrastructure projects in court.

As early as possible, I promise to roll back many of the most reckless and damaging rules promulgated under President Obama. As president, I will repeal the Environment Protection Agency’s new rule extending federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over millions of acres of private land, its new regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Power Plan, and its new and costly coal-ash standards for power plants. I will also work to repeal the so-called net-neutrality rule forced on the Federal Communications Commission by the White House and the Department of Education’s “gainful employment” rule that punishes for-profit colleges. That’s for starters.

I will also work with Congress to repeal significant portions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, and we will reform the complex set of rules that perpetuate too-big-to-fail financial institutions. Later this fall, I will announce a detailed agenda to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Regulation feeds into Washington’s revolving-door culture. Regulators spend years writing complex rules, then leave for the private sector to sell their inside knowledge to the highest bidder—usually a big, well-entrenched company. No wonder so many Americans are cynical about who Washington really works for.

Most important, as president, I will be guided by the faith that we are a nation of free men and women who are capable of achieving far more than liberals and regulators believe possible. Once we remove the burdens of overregulation, America will once again reclaim its reputation for inventiveness, energy and boundless opportunity.

Mr. Bush, a former governor of Florida, is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2015, 09:17:44 AM »

Hmmm.........

1. Bush 41 - "Read My Lips, No New Taxes"

2. Bush 43 - Medicare Drug Coverage, Patriot Act, etc.

3. Jeb - Amnesty, CommonCore, etc.

Now he wants to create a new commission to regulate the regulations. Shift more power back to the states. Rigorous White House review policy on regulations. Repeal Obama Care, IRS regulations, CFPB reform.

Why should I believe Jeb on this?
Logged

PPulatie
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13262


« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2015, 09:50:35 AM »

Hmmm.........

1. Bush 41 - "Read My Lips, No New Taxes"

2. Bush 43 - Medicare Drug Coverage, Patriot Act, etc.

3. Jeb - Amnesty, CommonCore, etc.

Now he wants to create a new commission to regulate the regulations. Shift more power back to the states. Rigorous White House review policy on regulations. Repeal Obama Care, IRS regulations, CFPB reform.

Why should I believe Jeb on this?

You shouldn't.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #56 on: September 23, 2015, 10:14:34 AM »

Thanks GM. I was worried that I was missing something.......again. wink

I think that I should put something together on the CFPB and Dodd Frank soon for the Housing thread. It will describe the problems and why repeal/reformation should occur. Also why Jeb and others will not do anything at all.

Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35832


« Reply #57 on: October 26, 2015, 11:26:47 AM »


By James Taranto
Oct. 26, 2015 11:14 a.m. ET
107 COMMENTS

“If Jeb Bush’s campaign is struggling to stay afloat, he didn’t show it on Saturday,” CNN reports from Daniel Island, S.C. “A day after slashing salaries and cutting campaign staff, the former Florida governor got an enthusiastic reception and delivered one of his strongest campaign performances to date.”

Well, that’s one way of looking at it, but we have another. Consider the most widely discussed passage from his Daniel Island remarks:

    Bush got one of his biggest responses from the crowd when he lamented the state of politics in Washington and argued that [Donald] Trump is not the kind of leader that could break through the gridlock.

    “If this election is about how we’re going to fight to get nothing done, then . . . I don’t want any part of it. I don’t want to be elected president to sit around and see gridlock just become so dominant that people literally are in decline in their lives. That is not my motivation,” he said.

    “I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that,” Bush added.

This columnist shares Bush’s exasperation with the Trump phenomenon. Trump is vulgar, intemperate, ideologically unprincipled, all bluster and no substance. Maybe Bush is too much of a gentleman to criticize Trump’s personal attributes, so he makes the argument about process—“gridlock”—instead.

But the process argument makes no sense. “Gridlock” refers to the inability of a divided government to make legislative progress. The president’s priorities are anathema to the Republicans who control Congress, and vice versa, with the result that there is a lot of drama and little change from the status quo.

The remedy for gridlock is to end divided government by electing either a Republican president or a Democratic Congress (though not both). But no one, or at least no partisan, is against gridlock per se. Republicans were very much in favor of it in 2010, having seen the results of united Democratic government. And from a GOP standpoint, just about any Republican president would break the current gridlock in a congenial manner.

Trump is, to put it kindly, an ideological wild card, so he probably would be likelier than the other Republican candidates to object to some aspects of the congressional GOP’s legislative agenda. On the other hand, he prides himself on his deal-making ability. Perhaps he oversells that ability, but even that suggests a willingness to make deals.

The flip side of that, however, is that if the Democrats were to take Congress, say in 2018, Trump almost certainly would have fewer qualms about cutting deals with them than would a conventional Republican candidate. That’s a strong argument against nominating Trump—and it’s the opposite of the argument Bush made.

The tone of Bush’s remarks is even worse than the substance. It reminded us of “Saturday Night Live’s” Jon Lovitz as Michael Dukakis in 1988: “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy.” That guy, of course, was Jeb Bush’s father, played by Dana Carvey—and Lovitz’s setup consisted of Carvey trying to run out the clock by repeating a series of platitudes: “Let’s stay the course. Thousand points of light. . . . Let’s just stay the course and keep on track. Stay the course. . . . On track, stay the course, a thousand points of light, stay the course.”

Listen to Trump being interviewed, and you can hear echoes of Carvey’s George Bush. This is from yesterday’s “Face the Nation”:

    And, as you know, I have disavowed all PACs. I had many people setting up PACs for me. And we sent letters last week saying we don’t want—I mean, we respect them, we love them, assuming it’s all on the up and up, because I don’t know—these people who run PACs, I don’t know what they do with everything.

    But, certainly, for the ones that are doing it with the right intention—but we disavowed all PACs, every one of them, John. And every candidate should do the same thing. This whole PAC concept is fraught with problems. And I think you are going to see tremendous problems with PACs over the years.

    And I am disavowing all PACs.

Jeb can’t believe he’s losing to this guy.

Neither, one may assume, can the people who came to his campaign event in South Carolina. But Bush’s appeal has become much more selective over the past few months, and his rhetoric on Saturday seems unlikely to broaden it.

Worst of all is his exhortation: “Elect Trump if you want that.” If the polls are to be believed, a plurality of Republican voters are prepared to do just that. Bush’s sarcasm may be lost on them, in which case he has just encouraged them to vote for the guy to whom he can’t believe he’s losing. If they do perceive the sarcasm, they will likely also not miss Bush’s implied criticism of them. Politics consists in part in the art of concealing one’s contempt for the common man.

Bush’s I’m-too-good-for-this attitude—“I don’t want any part of it. . . . I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do”—will come across as entitled, a particularly unattractive quality in a political scion. We sympathize with the view that he is too good for it, not because he is a Bush but because he was a very good governor; and that the Republican electorate (again, if the polls are to be believed) is grossly undervaluing competence, experience and even principle. But however justified Bush’s feelings may be, it is impolitic, and a sign of weakness, to display them in public.

Before the event, Bush spoke with reporters. “Pressed with questions about Trump, especially the real estate mogul’s recent slipping in the polls in Iowa to Carson, Bush grew tired of talking about his rival. ‘I’m past Donald Trump,’ he said”—an assertion that, as CNN notes, “certainly wasn’t true.”

Asked about his campaign’s recent financial difficulties, Bush replied: “Blah blah blah, Blah. That’s my answer.” That’s actually not a bad answer, but “he went on to point to other candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton in 2008, who were expected to take their parties’ nominations but failed in the end.”

Mrs. Clinton is part of a political dynasty. Giuliani was a competent, experienced executive who led in early polls, but never finished better than third in a primary and ended his campaign with a whimper in Florida. For Jeb Bush, those examples hit awfully close to home.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7491


« Reply #58 on: October 26, 2015, 12:48:49 PM »

Jeb was a great Governor.  He was always unlikely to overcome the family name and be seen as his own man even though his partly is.  I like his brother more than most people do but Bush fatigue is exactly what brought in the whole Pelosi-Reid-Obama era. 

Jeb failed to ever follow up on his opening point that he would win the general election by losing the primary.  That isn't how this process works.  If you are going to do this some other way, tell us how.

Except for national defense, I've never wanted a larger federal government role for anything ESPECIALLY EDUCATION.

I get it that the next President after Obama should have been one of the great two term Republican Governors that we had to choose from.  It didn't work out that way.  None of them rose up as the best communicator of why we need to change course what that new direction needs to be.

On his biggest conservative weakness, Bush (like Trump on the other side of it) never acknowledges the other side of the illegal immigration issue.  He sees the compassion side of it for the people who came here under our already in place, de facto amnesty policy and made lives for themselves here and have friends, family, neighbors and co-workers who will never vote to send them home.  But he doesn't even acknowledge that we lost our sovereignty and lost our nation over it AND THEY ARE STILL COMING  IN!

Worse yet, as he takes ownership for his brother's administration, well that was 8 of the years of the open borders epidemic.  This isn't something he can blame on Obama and the Democrats.  Onstead of blaming anyone, he doesn't even see that something went wrong.

Beyond those issues, (as they say of all underperforming candidates) he has never given us a compelling reason of why we should elect him.  His economic plan is among the best out there, but he has certainly not shown himself to be the best messenger to enact them.  There is no way he could advance his plan without it being labeled "the Bush tax cuts".  Of all the hundreds of millions of dollars that he and his PACs have available to them, have they ever spent 2 cents to correct the misconception that it was the previous 'Bush Tax Cuts' that caused the crash and the stagnation since then?  No.  Of course not. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35832


« Reply #59 on: October 26, 2015, 01:05:29 PM »

Also very weak on the Iraq War.

Instead of saying (as I do for example) that reasonable people can disagree on the decision to go in and that legit criticisms can be made in the waging of the war, that ultimately his brother handed over, as repeatedly acknowledged by Baraq and Biden to justify their bug out, a democratically elected constitutional government that needed, just as Germany, Japan, and Korea did, continued US presence to allow the new way of doing things to solidify.

Instead he said that in hindsight the war was a mistake.  Incredibly weak!!!
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #60 on: October 28, 2015, 01:27:29 PM »

Jeb's Social Security & Medicare Plan

Bush said he wants to gradually raise the retirement age for full benefits, adding one month each year, beginning in 2022 when the retirement age becomes 67 under current law. By 2034, the retirement age under his plan would be 68; by 2046 it would be 69. Currently, it's 66.

To encourage retirees to continue working, he would reduce benefits to those who want to retire early and increase benefits to those who work past their retirement age. He seeks to eliminate the $15,720 limit on income for working seniors already receiving Social Security. For those working beyond age 67, he proposes eliminating the 6.2 percent payroll tax.

Bush also said he would change the formula used to determine benefits by lowering monthly retirement checks to wealthier recipients. At the same time, he would increase to about $15,000 the minimum Social Security payment for people employed at least 30 years.

He also would lift the 10 percent limit employers can withhold from workers contributing to a 401(k) plan and help small businesses create those plans for employees.


Let's see.............he wants all the retirees to work longer. He wants to bring in more and more immigrants from Mexico.  Where are the jobs going to come from? How will wages increase with more and more people competing for limited jobs? 

Am I missing something?
Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35832


« Reply #61 on: October 28, 2015, 01:30:44 PM »

Actually what he proposes on SS is pretty much in line with my thinking and respect for his having the courage to say it.

Immigration is another matter though!
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #62 on: October 28, 2015, 01:56:10 PM »

But where are all the jobs going to come from?  Certainly not the TPP.......
Logged

PPulatie
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7491


« Reply #63 on: October 28, 2015, 02:08:54 PM »

But where are all the jobs going to come from?  Certainly not the TPP.......

If we passed all the best aspects of these reform proposals on taxes, regulations and repeal and replacement of Obamacare, entrepreneurial activity would come back, growth would rebound, and there would very quickly become a shortage of good workers.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #64 on: October 28, 2015, 02:58:55 PM »

And what regular politician is going to get that done?

The damned Budget Deal just destroyed any campaigning on budget restraint by the GOP. Imagine trying to claim that Pubs are for budget reform and deficit reduction during the election and the Dems saying "why did you push the budget deal through?"
Logged

PPulatie
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #65 on: October 28, 2015, 10:39:26 PM »

After the debate, Jeb announced that he was taking a new employment position.................he would be a coyote...... grin
Logged

PPulatie
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #66 on: October 29, 2015, 12:31:10 PM »

In the 1992 Democrat Convention, the Clinton acceptance speech kept saying about Bush 41 and his administration, "it's time for them to go".

For Jeb, the refrain should be by the Pubbies, "It's time for him to go".

No more Bushies.............

Logged

PPulatie
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #67 on: October 29, 2015, 06:10:07 PM »

US News got a copy of the Jeb blueprint for election. It also covers why Rubio will not succeed and how to attack him. Covers Iowa and NH. If Powerpoints and Statistics win elections and not personality, Jeb wins......................

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/10/29/jeb-bushs-campaign-blueprint

Gotta say, Jeb is in denial.
Logged

PPulatie
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13262


« Reply #68 on: October 29, 2015, 07:02:39 PM »

Jeb is done.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13262


« Reply #69 on: October 31, 2015, 06:29:04 AM »

https://ricochet.com/the-dead-campaign-sketch/

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7491


« Reply #70 on: January 10, 2016, 09:53:42 AM »

Funny that as we head into the heat of this contest, our Jeb thread hasn't earned a post since last October.

Even this one is only about the money of his surrogates.  'Right to Rise' is running its anti-Rubio ad nartionwide now, including a spot on Fox News Sunday this morning.  Rubio missed (meaningless) votes in Washington - OMG!  Some of those missed votes were from before he announced his run for President.  None of Jeb's complaints about missed votes however were from before Rubio announced his competing run for President.  Trump leads Rubio by something like 40-15%.  What a coward Jeb is at this point to cast petty stones at the candidate he finds most similar to himself, instead of at his real adversary.  Do they think Rubio is about to get out of the race while he has led Bush in nearly every poll in every state?  Everyone knows it's Bush that should get out if a non-Trumper is going to consolidate.  Who embodies the ideals of 'right to rise' better than Rubio?  So that's a phony front.  As Pat says, they want their power back more than they care about the right of struggling Americans to rise.

Jeb accumulated his $16 million selling his influence after leaving office, I would allege, unless you believe he had intimate knowledge of the investment banking business.  How good was the advice he gave to Lehman Brothers and how is that going now?

Jeb earned $29 million since leaving public office.  That is a lot of people telling you how great you are without facing a contested election in 20 years.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/30/418895297/jeb-bushs-wealth-skyrocketed-after-leaving-governors-office

F.Y.I. to J.E.B.:  Marco Rubio's missing votes in Washington DC is not among the things that have gone wrong with this country.  The US Senate has not held a vote over that time that would fix what has gone wrong. Whose policies are blocking the people's right to rise?  Why not put the attention there?

G M was right in October, "Jeb is done".  But he still has money at his disposal to exit in his own, scorched earth manner.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4967


« Reply #71 on: January 10, 2016, 11:11:30 AM »

Jeb comment that Trump has "hijacked the Republican Party" just unmasks the outrageous arrogance of this man.

I respect George H as a great American.   He was too much of a globalist not unlike many progressives as well as a rhino so to speak.

I respect and like W the most.  He is humble brought integrity to the office though of course he was a rhino too and made a mistake with Iraq though well intentioned.

But the chutzpah of this guy Jeb to act and think he is entitled to be President is just off the charts to me.

In this regard he is not unlike Hillary.

I have no respect remaining for him.


 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7491


« Reply #72 on: January 10, 2016, 11:38:03 AM »

ccp, right.  Both Bushes were good men.  Both had great moments; neither was a great President.

If not entitled, Jeb has a false sense of himself.  The more people have seen and heard him, the less they like him.  I have been saying from the outset that we need not just leaders with the right policies but leaders on our side who can make the case WHY these are the right policies.  Through all this, JEB has not ever shown himself to be smarter or more charismatic than DT.  In fact we discovered the opposite.  Both Jeb and DT have tax plans well crafted by aides and consultants.  Neither has told us how or why this will turn the economy around.  If you never heard an opposing view, Bernie Sanders is more convincing than either of these people.

Peggy Noonan was asked earlier about the observation that Bush has all this experience and it doesn't seem to matter to voters.  She pointed out it was his responsibility to persuade voters as to why that experience matters.

Noonan also wrote the famous line, 'Read my Lips No New Taxes'.  Having great aides and staff does not equal great leadership.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 11:49:52 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35832


« Reply #73 on: January 10, 2016, 12:46:44 PM »

Also, Jeb has this weird tick where he often shakes his head as if he is saying "No" while he answers questions.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7491


« Reply #74 on: January 12, 2016, 01:05:22 PM »

Jeb is in 8th place in Iowa, 8th place in NH (?).  Trump supposedly leads Rubio by 42 to 10, so JEB runs ads against Rubio, the candidate he is most likely to endorse.  What a moron.

And what is his criticism now of Rubio?  Amnesty and gang of 8.  Jeb wouldn't have been in the centrist gang of 8; he would have been all the way over with Obama.

What an unfortunate trainwreck his candidacy has become.  Some of us know we can help the country more by letting someone else be the candidate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/bush-super-pac-slams-rubio-on-illegal-immigration-amnesty.html

This is a PAC completely outside of Bush's control...  right.  He could affect their advertising strategy by dropping out like all the other irrelevant candidates are doing.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!