unknown
New Member
Democrats Attack Bush on Economy
Tue Jan 28,10:46 PM ET
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - America under President Bush (news - web sites) has been left with fewer jobs and not enough money for security, education and health, Democrats said Tuesday in a combative response to Bush's State of the Union speech.
"In too many ways, our country is headed in the wrong direction," Gov. Gary Locke of Washington state said in the official response from Democrats, who lost control of the Senate in the November elections and saw Republicans increase their majority in the House. He called Bush's plan to stimulate the economy "upside-down economics."
Locke, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, also took issue with Bush's assertion that he doesn't need U.N. approval to use military force against Iraq.
"We support the president in the course he has followed so far," including working with the United Nations (news - web sites) to insist on strong weapons inspections, Locke said. But "we need allies today, in 2003, just as much as we needed them in Desert Storm and just as we needed them on D-Day in 1944."
Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said after the president's address that he will seek votes in the House and Senate on a new resolution requiring Bush to present "convincing evidence of an imminent threat" before sending troops to fight Iraq. Kennedy said Bush "did not make a persuasive case that the threat is imminent and that war is the only alternative."
Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said in a statement: "President Bush failed to demonstrate that there is an immediate threat from Iraq to us or our allies."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that while Bush has the authority he needs to use force against Iraq, "I think it would be important for Congress to have an open debate" about unanswered questions.
Locke's response was markedly more critical than the Democratic reaction to Bush's first State of the Union speech a year ago, when then-House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, speaking only four months after the Sept. 11 attacks, pledged strong support for the president in his war on terrorism.
Now, Democrats are trying to regain the offensive after suffering unexpected losses in last November's election, while focusing on the nation's growing concerns over the faltering economy and the threat of war with Iraq.
Locke, whose state has been among the hardest-hit by the economic downturn, said that under Bush's policies "states and cities now face our worst budget crises since World War II."
"We're being forced to cut vital services from police to fire to health care," he said. "We need a White House that understands the challenges our communities and people are facing across America."
Locke said Bush's 10-year, $674 billion plan to rejuvenate the economy, mainly through tax cuts, was "upside-down economics. It does too little to stimulate the economy now and does too much to weaken our economic future."
Locke's selection to represent the party this year reflected the growing power of Democratic governors. While congressional Democrats gave ground, governors picked up four seats, for a total of 24. He is the nation's first Chinese-American governor.
He led a chorus of Democratic criticisms of Bush, joined by Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who said Bush "has promised a strong economy, and the result of two years of his effort have been 2 million jobs lost, a deficit of now $400 billion, a plummeting stock market and 1 million people without unemployment insurance compensation."
"He promised a strong homeland defense, and yet we have first responders who have no resources, we have yet to find two-third of al-Qaida, including Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)," Daschle said.
-----------------------------------
Does anybody find it funny how we're already $400 billion in debt, and Bush is promising this super "stimulus" in the economy, yet since he's been in office, the country has hit an all-time low since WWII, and he's willing to wage a war, with insufficient facts, that could cost in excess of $200 billion? What am I missing here...maybe some of these Republicans can explain this to me.
Tue Jan 28,10:46 PM ET
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - America under President Bush (news - web sites) has been left with fewer jobs and not enough money for security, education and health, Democrats said Tuesday in a combative response to Bush's State of the Union speech.
"In too many ways, our country is headed in the wrong direction," Gov. Gary Locke of Washington state said in the official response from Democrats, who lost control of the Senate in the November elections and saw Republicans increase their majority in the House. He called Bush's plan to stimulate the economy "upside-down economics."
Locke, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, also took issue with Bush's assertion that he doesn't need U.N. approval to use military force against Iraq.
"We support the president in the course he has followed so far," including working with the United Nations (news - web sites) to insist on strong weapons inspections, Locke said. But "we need allies today, in 2003, just as much as we needed them in Desert Storm and just as we needed them on D-Day in 1944."
Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said after the president's address that he will seek votes in the House and Senate on a new resolution requiring Bush to present "convincing evidence of an imminent threat" before sending troops to fight Iraq. Kennedy said Bush "did not make a persuasive case that the threat is imminent and that war is the only alternative."
Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said in a statement: "President Bush failed to demonstrate that there is an immediate threat from Iraq to us or our allies."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that while Bush has the authority he needs to use force against Iraq, "I think it would be important for Congress to have an open debate" about unanswered questions.
Locke's response was markedly more critical than the Democratic reaction to Bush's first State of the Union speech a year ago, when then-House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, speaking only four months after the Sept. 11 attacks, pledged strong support for the president in his war on terrorism.
Now, Democrats are trying to regain the offensive after suffering unexpected losses in last November's election, while focusing on the nation's growing concerns over the faltering economy and the threat of war with Iraq.
Locke, whose state has been among the hardest-hit by the economic downturn, said that under Bush's policies "states and cities now face our worst budget crises since World War II."
"We're being forced to cut vital services from police to fire to health care," he said. "We need a White House that understands the challenges our communities and people are facing across America."
Locke said Bush's 10-year, $674 billion plan to rejuvenate the economy, mainly through tax cuts, was "upside-down economics. It does too little to stimulate the economy now and does too much to weaken our economic future."
Locke's selection to represent the party this year reflected the growing power of Democratic governors. While congressional Democrats gave ground, governors picked up four seats, for a total of 24. He is the nation's first Chinese-American governor.
He led a chorus of Democratic criticisms of Bush, joined by Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who said Bush "has promised a strong economy, and the result of two years of his effort have been 2 million jobs lost, a deficit of now $400 billion, a plummeting stock market and 1 million people without unemployment insurance compensation."
"He promised a strong homeland defense, and yet we have first responders who have no resources, we have yet to find two-third of al-Qaida, including Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)," Daschle said.
-----------------------------------
Does anybody find it funny how we're already $400 billion in debt, and Bush is promising this super "stimulus" in the economy, yet since he's been in office, the country has hit an all-time low since WWII, and he's willing to wage a war, with insufficient facts, that could cost in excess of $200 billion? What am I missing here...maybe some of these Republicans can explain this to me.
