News How the Republicans washed out under Katrina

[Yonoz]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

 

[Yonoz]

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.

Funny, I always thought the Aborigines in Uluru to be democrats.
Guess that US-Australia trade agreement was quite influential.

 

[pattylou]

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.

 

[pattylou]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

Funny, I always thought the Aborigines in Uluru to be democrats.
Guess that US-Australia trade agreement was quite influential.

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. 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.

 

[Astronuc]

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. I could be wrong though.

"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!

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[pattylou]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[SOS2008]

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.

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[pattylou]

It's the dawning realization that they rode the wrong horse.

But we told them. When are we allowed to punch them?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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?

 

[Astronuc]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

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."

More political commentary at - http://www.heartsandminds.org/humor/fundemrep.htm

 

[pattylou]

Weren't we in the Black [annually] under Clinton?

Well, yes, we were. But we can't vote Democrat because they'll raise taxes.

 

[Skyhunter]

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?

 

[kyleb]

I wouldn't say "very", the current and previous Mayor are both Republicans.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

 

[Skyhunter]

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Quite a few forum members should have a look at that.

Sounds like someone I know.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[loseyourname]

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.