News How the Republicans washed out under Katrina

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the failures of the Bush administration and the Republican Party in responding to Hurricane Katrina, highlighting a lack of preparedness and effective emergency management. Critics argue that despite having ample resources and time, the government failed to protect citizens adequately, leading to unnecessary loss of life. The response from FEMA, led by political appointees rather than qualified professionals, is particularly scrutinized. The conversation also touches on the political ramifications of the disaster, with some suggesting that it could derail Bush's agenda and affect future elections. Al Gore's efforts to aid victims are contrasted with the administration's perceived inaction, emphasizing a divide in how political figures responded to the crisis. The discussion reflects broader themes of accountability, political blame, and the need for effective disaster management policies moving forward.
  • #51
kyleb said:
That has been just over 4 years with no attacks on US soil, and in the 4 years before the WTC attack how many were there? It seems to me you have to overlook recent history to arive at your conclusion.
Precisely. Maybe I didn't notice before Bush, but it seems that faulty reasoning has become pervasive. The sidewalk is wet, therefore it rained. Or, come to find out it was the sprinkler system? If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops, and if you don't support the troops you are unpatriotic. The fallacy here is that being against a president's policies has nothing to do with supporting the troops, and certainly nothing to do with being patriotic. If terrorists have tried to attack, there have been no reports of a thwarted attempt--like Rove would pass that up.

Back to the topic...The failures of our Homeland Security have been made evident by Katrina. This is hurting the Republican party. Will it still be the case in 2006? In 2008? That's the question. Bush is in his last term, which tends to be a lame duck term anyway. Speculations are he does not have time to turn things around, even if he can find a way to do it. But it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Yes, the republicans want this to be about anything but their miserable failure to ensure that American lives are protected by a strong and well equipped National Guard; that they should be here and not overseas fighting an illegal [no WMDs, no threat] war.

Did anyone notice that we are suddenly recalling troops from Afghanistan? Of course this has nothing to do with Katrina; just like Brown left La, but not to be fired. :smile: :smile: :smile:

The only way to make this war popular was to avoid the draft, so Bush sacrificed our national security for political gain.

Edit: Oh yes, we have not been attacked again by twenty guys with box knives; I give Bush that much.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
...not to mention that a number of Governors, including ours here in Oregon, filed law suits again the Feds for trying to pull our defenses. Here in Oregon they tried to take away our fighter jets. That makes one heck of a lot of sense if you want to leave us vulnerable to attack, Rummy. It really makes one wonder what their real objectives may be.

The counter argument is that naval ships off the coast can protect us. In other words, according to Rummy, we don't need the guard. So is Rummy going to guarantee that he'll park carriers off the coast of Oregon? Of course not. So where does that leave us?
 
Last edited:
  • #54
The real dichotomy: The republicans are allegedly the great supporters of the second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But it seems that rather than arising from due concern for constitutional law or the safety of U.S. citizens, this is only used as convenient leverage for the gun lobby. The undisputed purpose of this clause, which goes far beyond the hotly debated issue of private gun ownership, has been trashed at the deepest level by Bush and his shotgun PR clan. Many republicans, and in particular Rummy, are enemies of the second Amendment, thus the constitution, thus the nation, by any significant measure.

What follows, and in particular to aid in times of disaster, is how the guard has been used historically.

Under these provisions, the right of the states to maintain a militia, including what is now the National Guard, is always subordinate to the power of Congress. In 1795 Congress first gave the president authority to call out the militia to suppress insurrections. Presidents employed this power to enforce federal law during desegregation disputes during the 1950s, and later during the civil disturbances in various cities during the 1960s
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Edit: They are also our last line of defense against invasions.

One would think that they might also be helpful in patrolling the US Mexican border since this is the easiest portal through which terrorists can enter. The fact that this issue is not a first priority for Bush and Rummy speaks volumes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
I quite enjoy seeing the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the Republicans pointed out here; but I feel it is important to point out that the Democratic minority in our congress had both the position and the responsibly to publicize these shortcomings long before they led to the current disaster. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shift the blame here; but rather I feel it is important to point out that swapping teams isn't going to change much as they are all still playing the same corrupt game.
 
  • #56
As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the blame goes with everyone who supported Bush. The corruption of politics can only be kept in check by an informed citizenry.

As do so many that supported Bush, my uncle, for one, still thinks Saddam attacked New York. We also have an entire generation of people who think bs debate tactics matter.
 
  • #57
Ivan Seeking said:
As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the blame goes with everyone who supported Bush. The corruption of politics can only be kept in check by an informed citizenry.

As do so many that supported Bush, my uncle, for one, still thinks Saddam attacked New York. We also have an entire generation of people who think bs debate tactics matter.

Agreed. It's not like they didn't know he was incompetent. Remember the old argument, "yeah, he's not that sharp, but he surrounds himself with intelligent, highly skilled people, and they'll do just fine."

Yeah, he surrounds himself with people like Mike Brown.

Reminds me of the story of the woman who brought the snake in out of the cold.
 
  • #58
Ivan Seeking said:
We also have an entire generation of people who think bs debate tactics matter.
I wholeheartedly agree with that. Furthermore, it seems relevant point in this conversation for me to point out my opinion that the underlying cause for the fall of the Greek empire was quite simply due to their overwhelming respect for the craft of sophistry. Granted, I can't rightly prove that theory with conclusive evidence; but all the same, it seems counterintuitive to believe that one can run a stable government without a stable foundation of principles to base it on.
 
  • #59
Ivan Seeking said:
As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the blame goes with everyone who supported Bush. The corruption of politics can only be kept in check by an informed citizenry.
:smile: :smile: :smile: My daily Dilbert!

Corruption is unique to Republicans (or Bush)? People's biggest criticism of Bush over Katrina is that Brown was a political appointee who wasn't qualified for the job. You're saying Clinton didn't do the same thing? That's hilarious.
 
  • #60
People's biggest criticism of Bush over Katrina is that Brown was a political appointee who wasn't qualified for the job. You're saying Clinton didn't do the same thing?
I don't know why the Bush/Clinton comparison comes up so often. I don't see people defending the Democrats as a party, I certainly don't, there *is* enough corruption to go around. I bash bush; I don't say that Democrats are pure as the driven snow.

If you have two questionable parties, then you would do well to clean house, get a third non-corrupt party, and so on. (Of course, I'm an idealist, being a liberal.)

Barring the ability to do that (creating a viable third party would take enormous resources) you have to demand greater accountability among politicians overall, and you also have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Between Bush Jr. and Clinton, that would be Clinton, no contest.

Between McCain and H. Clinton, that would be McCain.

It makes perfect sense also, that personal philosophies will lead someone like myself to view the Democrats as BY AND LARGE being less corrupt than Republicans. The reverse might hold for you, Russ. On the other hand, I rarely see conservatives say anything positive for a Democratic politician, and perhaps conservatives really do look at their personal finances more than at the (lack of) integrity of the people in office that are benefiting their finances. I'm curious for any opinions on this.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
kyleb said:
I wholeheartedly agree with that. Furthermore, it seems relevant point in this conversation for me to point out my opinion that the underlying cause for the fall of the Greek empire was quite simply due to their overwhelming respect for the craft of sophistry. Granted, I can't rightly prove that theory with conclusive evidence; but all the same, it seems counterintuitive to believe that one can run a stable government without a stable foundation of principles to base it on.
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Quite a few forum members should have a look at that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
G.O.P. Split Over Big Plans for Storm Spending
By CARL HULSE (NY Times), Sep 16

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - The drive to pour tens of billions of federal dollars into rebuilding the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast is widening a fissure among Republicans over fiscal policy, with more of them expressing worry about unbridled spending.

On Thursday, even before President Bush promised that "federal funds will cover the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone," fiscal conservatives from the House and Senate joined budget watchdog groups in demanding that the administration be judicious in asking for taxpayer dollars.

One fiscal conservative, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said Thursday, "I don't believe that everything that should happen in Louisiana should be paid for by the rest of the country. I believe there are certain responsibilities that are due the people of Louisiana."

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, called for restoring "sanity" to the federal recovery effort. Congress has approved $62 billion, mostly to cover costs already incurred, and the price tag is rising. The House and Senate approved tax relief Thursday at an estimated cost of more than $5 billion on top of $3.5 billion in housing vouchers approved by the Senate on Wednesday.

"We know we need to help, but throwing more and more money without accountability at this is not going to solve the problem," Mr. DeMint said.

Their comments were in marked contrast to the sweeping administration approach outlined by Mr. Bush in his speech from New Orleans and a call by Senate Republican leaders for a rebuilding effort similar to the Marshall Plan after World War II. Congressional Democrats advocated their own comprehensive recovery program Thursday, promoting a combination of rebuilding programs coupled with housing, health care, agriculture and education initiatives. The president also emphasized the importance of private entrepreneurship to create jobs "and help break the cycle of poverty."

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said he believed that providing rapid and extensive help overrode the need to cut spending elsewhere. "I think we have to understand that we have a devastation that has to be taken care of," Mr. Reid said. "And I'm not into finding where we can cut yet."

That mindset is troubling to other lawmakers who fear that in addition to a reborn Gulf Coast, something else will rise from the storm: record federal deficits.

"We know this is a huge bill," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. "We don't want to lay it on future generations." Given the fierce political backlash to the stumbling relief effort in the days after the hurricane struck, House Republican leaders have been reluctant to stand in the way of any emergency legislation. After the speech, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert acknowledged that the price tag means that "for every dollar we spend on this, it is going to take a little bit longer to balance the budget." He said he was willing to listen to ideas to pay for the aid, but, "Quite frankly, we have to get this job done."

Despite those comments, many Republicans are increasingly edgy about the White House's push for a potentially open-ended recovery budget, worried that the president - in trying to regroup politically - was making expensive promises they would have to keep.

"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior House Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration.

The fears about the costs of the storm are building on widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives about spending in recent years by the Republican-controlled Congress. That unrest was already high after Congressional approval of a transportation measure that critics denounced as bloated with marginal home-state projects.

That sore spot was rubbed raw earlier this week when Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, suggested that the Republican Congress had already trimmed much of the fat from the federal budget, making it difficult to find ways to offset hurricane spending.

Mr. Coburn called such a claim ludicrous and other Republicans took exception as well.
:033102luf_1_prv.gif:

"There has never been a time where there is more total spending and more wasteful spending in Washington than we have today," said Pat Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania and the head of the conservative Club for Growth. "There is ample opportunity to find the offsets we need so that this does not have to be a fiscal disaster as well as a natural disaster."

On another front, Republicans and Democrats continued their dispute over how to investigate government failures in the storm response. The House approved a select committee to oversee the inquiry despite Democratic objections that only a special commission outside of Congress could do a credible job.

The House voted 224 to 188 to establish a 20-member panel to work in concert with a similar Senate panel in studying the adequacy of local, state and federal preparations for the storm and why the relief effort was so troubled, stranding thousands in chaotic conditions without sufficient food, water or medical care.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said the special committee was an effort to "whitewash" the inquiry though she later said she would not stand in the way if Democrats want to sit on the panel. In another effort to reduce Democratic opposition, Mr. Hastert on Thursday named Representative Thomas M. Davis III, a sometimes Republican maverick from Virginia, to lead the panel.

As for paying for the recovery, Ms. Pelosi raised the possibility of 50-year bonds tied to the reconstruction.

The conservative Republicans worried about the outlays said the president and Congressional leaders need to ask the public to share in the sacrifice and suggested savings could be easily wrung from federal agencies or in Congress in ways like eliminating pet projects.

"Katrina breaks my heart," said Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana and chairman of a caucus of more than 100 House Republicans who advocate conservative spending policy. "Congress must do everything the American people expect us to do to meet the needs of families and communities affected by Katrina. But we must not let Katrina break the bank for our children and grandchildren."

If the Republicans are for less government - why to the federal budgets keep increasing. The Republicans control the Executive Branch and Congress. Where is all that money going? And on top of that, my combined state and local taxes (more local than state) have doubled because the federal government has reduced spending in my state! We have a Republican governor and most local officials are Republican. :biggrin:
 
  • #63
Astronuc said:
my combined state and local taxes (more local than state) have doubled because the federal government has reduced spending in my state! We have a Republican governor and most local officials are Republican. :biggrin:
Funny, I always thought the Aborigines in Uluru to be democrats.
Guess that US-Australia trade agreement was quite influential.
:-p
 
  • #64
From page 2:

Originally Posted by BobG
We are safer against terrorist threats, but at a cost of being more vulnerable to natural disasters.
2 questions:

1. Can you give me a good reference that shows we are safer from terrorist threats under Bush?

2. Is domestic increase in safety worth increasing the risk of terrorism in other countries? At what point do we start to equate a foreign life with an American life?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5042601623.html

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.
(incidentally, 2003 was higher than 2002, etc.)
I have seen several people address question #1. I have a recollection that in fact studies (rather than opinion polls) say that we are *not* safer than we were, but I have been unable to find them. I'll post them later if I track them down.

But! Question #2 is the more interesting question anyway.. Why is no one (particularly those people that are arguing that we are safer) answering this?

How many foreign lives equate to one American life? If you truly believe it is one to one, then the roughly quintupling in terrorist events over the last four years should present an ethical problem to any focus you might put on domestic terror.

If you believe one American life is worth 10 or 20 foreign lives, then please explain how you reach such a conclusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
Posted by Astronuc:
"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior House Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration.
This puts me in stitches.
 
  • #66
Yonoz said:
Funny, I always thought the Aborigines in Uluru to be democrats.
Guess that US-Australia trade agreement was quite influential.
:-p
Uluru is a spiritual home. I live in the US, at least for now.

I actually prefer to be nomadic, but my wife and kids need stability. :biggrin:I

I consider the whole planet to be my home, and national borders are arbitrary. Unfortunately, too many people like to impose artificial boundaries against others.
 
  • #67
The conservative Republicans worried about the outlays said the president and Congressional leaders need to ask the public to share in the sacrifice . . .
Well I was somewhat amused by the conservatives who want Bush to ask the public 'share in their pain'.

I can't imagine that too many millionaires, particularly Bush, will make much in the way of sacrifice. :rolleyes: I could be wrong though.

pattylou said:
NY Times said:
"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior House Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration.
This puts me in stitches.
I had to chuckle at that one, too! :smile: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #68
pattylou said:
From page 2:

I have seen several people address question #1. I have a recollection that in fact studies (rather than opinion polls) say that we are *not* safer than we were, but I have been unable to find them. I'll post them later if I track them down.

But! Question #2 is the more interesting question anyway.. Why is no one (particularly those people that are arguing that we are safer) answering this?

How many foreign lives equate to one American life? If you truly believe it is one to one, then the roughly quintupling in terrorist events over the last four years should present an ethical problem to any focus you might put on domestic terror.

If you believe one American life is worth 10 or 20 foreign lives, then please explain how you reach such a conclusion.
I'm not sure how question 1 affects question 2. I guess you could say if a 3rd grade bully has a choice of picking on an unarmed 1st grader or a 1st grader carrying a baseball bat, he'll probably choose to pick on the weaker target, but you could hardly expect either 1st grader to intentionally make themselves the weakest, most appealling target.

Obviously, the best option would have been to continue focusing on eliminating international terrorism to the point that it's not a serious threat to any country - the way we did with the Afghanistan invasion to eliminate al-Qaeda's center. But I don't think it's very fair or realistic to expect the US to be able to pursue terrorists internationally at the same time we're fighting a war in Iraq. Maybe Russia could chase them down for awhile - after all, we lured a large number of Chechnyan 'insurgents' into Iraq where they're not bothering Russia anymore.
 
  • #69
Yonoz said:
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Quite a few forum members should have a look at that.
I'm sorry but is there any chance you could reiterate the intent of writing in something at least vaguely resembling formal English composition? I forced myself to read though it once and started a second time; but the collection of loosely related, mostly two sentence "paragraph" like things, failed miserably in communicating anything of value to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
BobG said:
I'm not sure how question 1 affects question 2. I guess you could say if a 3rd grade bully has a choice of picking on an unarmed 1st grader or a 1st grader carrying a baseball bat, he'll probably choose to pick on the weaker target, but you could hardly expect either 1st grader to intentionally make themselves the weakest, most appealling target.
I am trying to point out that our actions (aggression) increase terrorism.

If you are concerned *only* with American soil, this may not be a problem. (No one bothers the bully.) If you are concerned with the entire planet (or the entire 3rd grade classroom), then you try to eliminate the fighting all around - you don't allow the kid that is "right" (whatever that means) to continue to beat up the kid that is "wrong."
Obviously, the best option would have been to continue focusing on eliminating international terrorism to the point that it's not a serious threat to any country - the way we did with the Afghanistan invasion to eliminate al-Qaeda's center.
I disagree. To me it is obvious that the only way to "eliminate" an enemy is to increase communication with them --- I realize this is pollyannish but as I look at the results of our actions and see increased global terror, I tentatively conclude that terrorism does not respond to aggression the way we would like. Another clue here is that terrorists often claim past grievances as the basis for their actions.

This is somewhat distinct, in terms of basis of aggression, from the types of complaints that spur nations to war; historically they war over resources, or political ideologies.

But this is tangential. I would like to see conservatives place a number on what foreign lives are worth, compared to American lives. Barring that, I would like to see them *not* make the argument that we are safer because of our aggression, as the global incidents are escalating very rapidly.
 
  • #71
The obvious way to eliminating international terrorism is to avoid any future actions which would motivate people to turn to terrorism. Those who have already walked down that path will eventually die off, and without motivation there will be none to take their place.
 
  • #72
kyleb said:
The obvious way to eliminating international terrorism is to avoid any future actions which would motivate people to turn to terrorism. Those who have already walked down that path will eventually die off, and without motivation there will be none to take their place.
This would basically require an end to change.

The primary beef with Western culture is its infiltration into Middle Eastern countries. The money from oil has been used to buy worthless products like Coca-Cola and Levi jeans. Worse, Western influence isn't just limited to products. It affects the attitude of Middle Easterners - women wanting a different role in Middle Eastern culture than they have traditionally had, for example.

It's hard to convince people that their new ways are corrupt - it alienates the people the fundamentalists are trying to reach. It's more effective to point out bad things Western culture has done that doesn't implicate the Arabs they're trying to convert. Fundamentalists point out the bad effects of European colonization, it's creation of Israel, and the US's continued support for Israel to turn Arabs against Western powers. If the Middle East is at war against all Western countries, then all of the Western influence in the Middle East should disappear, including Western products.

Those opposed to recent cultural changes in the Middle East will eventually die off in any event. Your fundamentalist groups aren't that different from, say, the ranchers that were so glad to have the railroad finally reach the prairies until they realized that the railroad also brought farmers (it may not be much fun herding cattle to market, but cattle can at least walk on their own, something wheat and corn can't do). The range wars ended over a hundred years ago - you'd be hard pressed to find a rancher roaming the range shooting farmers and sabotaging fences today.
 
  • #73
Astronuc said:
G.O.P. Split Over Big Plans for Storm Spending
By CARL HULSE (NY Times), Sep 16



If the Republicans are for less government - why to the federal budgets keep increasing. The Republicans control the Executive Branch and Congress. Where is all that money going? And on top of that, my combined state and local taxes (more local than state) have doubled because the federal government has reduced spending in my state! We have a Republican governor and most local officials are Republican. :biggrin:
Since the Republicans control both of these branches of government, and are the one's who voted for the invasion of Iraq, the energy bill, highway bill, etc., how can they complain about spending? Oh, I know, it's different when the pork is going to your state and/or getting you reelected, but NOT when it is going elsewhere.
 
  • #74
BobG said:
This would basically require an end to change.
I'm of the opinion that it would only require an end to our subjugation of the people of the Middle East as well as our support for those who subjugate their own. While it is true that many of them have a lack of respect for our culteural values, I do not believe that this in-itself motivates terrorism.
 
  • #75
kyleb said:
I'm of the opinion that it would only require an end to our subjugation of the people of the Middle East as well as our support for those who subjugate their own. While it is true that many of them have a lack of respect for our culteural values, I do not believe that this in-itself motivates terrorism.
You miss the point. They probably wouldn't care one or the other about our cultural values as long as our values stayed out of the Middle East.

There's more than way for our cultural values to infiltrate the Middle East than political subjugation. Commerce has created a greater influx of Western culture than anything the US or Europe has done politically or militarily.
 
  • #76
SOS2008 said:
Since the Republicans control both of these branches of government, and are the one's who voted for the invasion of Iraq, the energy bill, highway bill, etc., how can they complain about spending? Oh, I know, it's different when the pork is going to your state and/or getting you reelected, but NOT when it is going elsewhere.
It's the dawning realization that they rode the wrong horse.

I'm wondering what happens if Iraq becomes a Shi'ite theocracy. Then even the religious right will abandon Bush.
 
  • #77
BobG said:
You miss the point. They probably wouldn't care one or the other about our cultural values as long as our values stayed out of the Middle East.

There's more than way for our cultural values to infiltrate the Middle East than political subjugation. Commerce has created a greater influx of Western culture than anything the US or Europe has done politically or militarily.
Actually you are missing my point; I do not believe that the influx cultural values you previously noted are the root of the hostility.
 
  • #78
BobG said:
It's the dawning realization that they rode the wrong horse.
But we told them. When are we allowed to punch them?
 
  • #79
With disaster costs estimated at $200 billion and beyond, Al Hubbard, director of Bush's National Economic Council, said, "It's coming from the American taxpayer." He acknowledged the costs would swell the deficit projected at $333 billion for the current year before Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1132385

The Cost of War calculator is set to reach $204.6 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005). The Cost of War calculator is occasionally reset based on new information and new allocations of funding.
http://costofwar.com/numbers.html

Note that fighting or preventing terrorism has not been mentioned yet.
 
Last edited:
  • #80
I heard that the funding for the Iraq war is being done as supplemental bills, so its not part of the budget and therefore it is not counted in the deficit either. :rolleyes:

So the deficit (excluding Katrina) is much larger, and then including Katrina it's even greater.

Robert Reich had a great idea. Reopen the highway bill and strip out the pork. The money has been authorized, but not spent - so basically they can start over and eliminate unnecessary programs to cover Katrina.
 
  • #81
So just this year, and not counting Katrina, the Rep led government has cost every man, woman, and child, about $1000. ACtually I should say added to our debt since this doesn't count taxes paid.

Weren't we in the Black [annually] under Clinton?
 
  • #82
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 17 Sep 2005 at 01:16:45 PM GMT is:
$7,964,818,252,945.36 give or take - so each time one looks its greater

The estimated population of the United States is 297,188,609
so each citizen's share of this debt is $26,800.55.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.66 billion per day since September 30, 2004!

Under Clinton, there were some years of surplus. Part of that was due to the inflated stock market - which between 1999-2001 fell by $6 trillion, although since then it has recovered by $ 2-3 trillion. Nevertheless, the represents a significant reduction in future spending.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
Reading this thread I couldn't help but think of a comment by P.J. O'Rourke and reiterated IIRC by Robert Fulghum.

"Democrats are...the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected to prove it." :biggrin:

More political commentary at - http://www.heartsandminds.org/humor/fundemrep.htm :biggrin:
 
  • #84
Ivan Seeking said:
Weren't we in the Black [annually] under Clinton?
Well, yes, we were. But we can't vote Democrat because they'll raise taxes.
 
  • #85
loseyourname said:
Historically speaking, it's always been a city that did what needs to be done to get the job finished. One thing I learned living there is that, even if there is class and race tension and all that, when it comes down to it, everybody there is a New Yorker. There's a love and a brotherhood there that I've never experienced in any other big city. I don't know that one could say the same about New Orleans.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't NY a very liberal city?
 
  • #86
I wouldn't say "very", the current and previous Mayor are both Republicans.
 
  • #87
pattylou said:
On the other hand, I rarely see conservatives say anything positive for a Democratic politician,
Not true. I have heard conservatives say wonderful things about Zell Miller.
 
  • #88
Yonoz said:
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Quite a few forum members should have a look at that.
:smile: :smile: :smile: Sounds like someone I know. :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #89
Oh, heh, now that I click on the link again and get a new essay it makes much more sense. I suppose I was trying to be too serious before and should have read the fine print at the bottom the first time around. :-p
 
  • #90
Skyhunter said:
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't NY a very liberal city?

Well, as Kyle points out, the last two mayors and the governor are Republicans, although the city has gone democratic in the last several presidential elections by a fairly wide margin. The city certainly has a liberal feel to it, but it also may be the most commercially driven city in the world. They know that business is what has made them great, and that the bulk of their public revenue comes from business - a lot from sales tax, granted, but that is still dependent on retail sales. Giuliani pulled the city out of the squalor it was in during the 80s and 90s by cracking down on crime and making the city one of the most favorable business environments in the country. It was largely Disney that rebuilt and cleaned up Times Square. Even most of their public works projects, like the great bridges and parks they have, were funded by public authorities, which obtain their money largely through user fees rather than taxes. New Yorkers are practical, and being conservative in the right ways resulted in their property values quadrupling over the last 15 years. There is a flip side, of course, as almost no one can afford to live in Manhattan any more. Ultimately, though, I think that if we look at New York under Giuliani and contrast it with the US under Bush, the difference isn't so much that one is conservative and the other isn't. Both are conservative. The difference is that one knows how to lead and implements clear, well thought-out plans of action. I honestly doubt that Bush would be doing any better if he flipped and implemented Kerry's platform.
 
  • #91
Katrina hasn't been bad for all Republicans.

Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi, should come out of this looking very good - maybe good enough to push him to a Presidential contender.

Barbour is a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and has very close ties with the Donald Segretti-Lee Atwater-Karl Rove line of political strategists (in fact, Barbour worked directly with both Rove and Atwater in Republican campaign finance). Having Rove's group helping Barbour campaign means McCain and other Republican candidates can expect another very effective 'lowball' campaign in the Republican primaries.

His close ties with Rove and with Bush give him an advantage in getting federal help. Mississippi should wind up with more help in proportion to their losses than New Orleans, where a Republican federal government will be dealing with Democratic politicians they have little sympathy for. That gives Barbour a good opportunity to contrast how well Mississippi recovers from Katrina to how well New Orleans recovers from Katrina. So far, Barbour ranks second to General Honore of the National Guard in opinion polls about how officials have responded to Katrina - his overall popularity has increased 15% while Blanco (Governor of Louisiana) has dropped 9%.

Dirt wise, he had some problems with Hong Kong money being used to finance Republican campaigns while Barbour was Chairman of the Republican National Committee and he was also embarrassed by the Council of Conservative Citizens when, on their website, they posted a picture of him meeting with CCC leaders at a fundraiser conducted by the CCC (the CCC is the legal, non-violent political wing of the KKK). He claimed he didn't know anything about the CCC when he met them and appeared at their barbecue fundraiser. It is understandable the CCC would like having Barbour appear at one of their functions, since his stance on affirmative action and other peripheral racial issues (Mississippi state flag, etc) line up well with the CCC's views.
 
  • #92
BobG said:
other peripheral racial issues (Mississippi state flag, etc
What's the issue with the Mississippi State flag?
 
  • #93
Yonoz said:
What's the issue with the Mississippi State flag?

http://www.50states.com/flag/msflag.htm

see the "X" in the upper left? That was the confederate flag---the flag used by the southern states during the civil war. That portion is offensive to a lot of minorities because it represents a time and a system where they were enslaved and the fact that a state---any state---would honor that fight to enslave is offensive.

http://www.paulduncan.org/files/confederate_flag.jpg
http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/ms_flag.htm
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feature2/histconflag.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_flag
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
faust9 said:
http://www.50states.com/flag/msflag.htm

see the "X" in the upper left? That was the confederate flag---the flag used by the southern states during the civil war. That portion is offensive to a lot of minorities because it represents a time and a system where they were enslaved and the fact that a state---any state---would honor that fight to enslave is offensive.

http://www.paulduncan.org/files/confederate_flag.jpg
http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/ms_flag.htm
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feature2/histconflag.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_flag
Rather odd how that hasn't been changed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #95
Yonoz said:
Rather odd how that hasn't been changed.

I agree, but old prejudices die hard.
 
  • #96
faust9 said:
I agree, but old prejudices die hard.
Do you mean that in the state of Mississippi there is still such strong prejudice? Or is it simply sentiment to that period - do people not feel enough regret?
 
  • #97
Recent statistics show that the percentage of white votes for republicans in southern states has tracked accurately with the size of the black population in each state. For the gulf states with large black populations it's up around 60% but much lower in border states with lower numbers of blacks. This doesn't prove "racism" but it does show that whites tend to have a political preference correlated with their perception of black numbers.
 
  • #98
BobG said:
Katrina hasn't been bad for all Republicans.

Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi, should come out of this looking very good - maybe good enough to push him to a Presidential contender.

Barbour is a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and has very close ties with the Donald Segretti-Lee Atwater-Karl Rove line of political strategists (in fact, Barbour worked directly with both Rove and Atwater in Republican campaign finance). Having Rove's group helping Barbour campaign means McCain and other Republican candidates can expect another very effective 'lowball' campaign in the Republican primaries.

His close ties with Rove and with Bush give him an advantage in getting federal help. Mississippi should wind up with more help in proportion to their losses than New Orleans, where a Republican federal government will be dealing with Democratic politicians they have little sympathy for. That gives Barbour a good opportunity to contrast how well Mississippi recovers from Katrina to how well New Orleans recovers from Katrina. So far, Barbour ranks second to General Honore of the National Guard in opinion polls about how officials have responded to Katrina - his overall popularity has increased 15% while Blanco (Governor of Louisiana) has dropped 9%.

Dirt wise, he had some problems with Hong Kong money being used to finance Republican campaigns while Barbour was Chairman of the Republican National Committee and he was also embarrassed by the Council of Conservative Citizens when, on their website, they posted a picture of him meeting with CCC leaders at a fundraiser conducted by the CCC (the CCC is the legal, non-violent political wing of the KKK). He claimed he didn't know anything about the CCC when he met them and appeared at their barbecue fundraiser. It is understandable the CCC would like having Barbour appear at one of their functions, since his stance on affirmative action and other peripheral racial issues (Mississippi state flag, etc) line up well with the CCC's views.
Bush was an unknown with exception of a well-known name. Grass roots movements have grown tremendously since then to prevent this kind of candidate in the future. Any association with the likes of Rove will be greatly publicized, and dirty politics will be less acceptable to fed-up American citizens. The playing field has changed--maybe even the media will do their jobs (if they don't, the bloggers will?).

Edit: Not to mention ongoing election reform.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
SOS2008 said:
Bush was an unknown with exception of a well-known name. Grass roots movements have grown tremendously since then to prevent this kind of candidate in the future. Any association with the likes of Rove will be greatly publicized, and dirty politics will be less acceptable to fed-up American citizens. The playing field has changed--maybe even the media will do their jobs (if they don't, the bloggers will?).

Edit: Not to mention ongoing election reform.
How so? Was there ever a proven direct link between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Vets? How well did the Swift Boat adds go over?

A lot of people say they are fed up with that type of campaigning, but I haven't seen much sign that its effectiveness is diminishing. The idea that it will be less effective in the future is a hope, not a likelihood.
 
  • #100
SOS2008 said:
Edit: Not to mention ongoing election reform.
Even that is an ongoing struggle. A significant portion of it was very nearly circumvented: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/092105/frist.html .

Issues like this hurts Frist much more than something like the HCA stock. McCain is more influential in the Senate than the Republican Majority Leader. Frist loses credibility as a Republican leader nearly every time he comes in conflict with McCain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top