George Bush as FDR

[crazyforgoofy]

Or perhaps as LBJ. How do you think he did? I've never heard a Republican say anything like what he said tonight.

[Alicnwondrln]

thats what all the networks are saying
conservatives are freakin out at some of the stuff he said

[bsnyder]

I'm still mulling it over. I liked the ending - the reminders of other historic disasters that we, as a nation, have overcome.

But one thing I keep thinking. If they're going to rebuild all these homes and businesses in the same places, don't they have to fix the levees FIRST? NOLA could have another hurricane next month, or next year.

[Alicnwondrln]

i was shocked that he said racism creates poverty
its true but i didnt think he would say it

[M:SteveO]

I'm a conservative, and what he said needed to be said. All of the social and recovery programs that the president proposed tonight had to be said. We must pour money into these programs because there are 1 million people without homes. We must do, and are doing, all that we can to help them. This involves a whole heck of alot of money, but it's money that has to be spent. Overall, I thought it was a really good speech. He took responsibility for the lack of coordination between the local, state, and federal gov'ts, took personal responsibility for the slow federal response (although this can be debated), and proposed that federal government take a larger role in future disasters (which is a bold, but I think necessary, idea considering the complete failure of the local and state governments).

Overall, however, for those that believe Bush is a conservative, in the fiscal sense of the word, are wrong. This incident didn't just all of sudden make him open up the pocketbook. He's spent more than Clinton domestically, so the fact that the media tries to paint him as a fiscal conservative are just dead wrong, always have been.

[JimB.]

I was at a HS football game with my DS.

What did he say?

[Geoff_M]

conservatives are freakin out at some of the stuff he saidActually, the people I've seen so far freaking out are the Libertarians on the net, the couple of conversative sites I frequent I've looked at have reacted very positively overall.

[WDWBetsy]

I was at a HS football game with my DS.

What did he say?

Here is the text of his speech (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-15-bush-katrina-text_x.htm) :

Text of President Bush's address
The Associated Press
BUSH: Good evening. I am speaking to you from the city of New Orleans, nearly empty, still partly underwater, and waiting for life and hope to return. Eastward from Lake Pontchartrain, across the Mississippi coast, to Alabama and into Florida, millions of lives were changed in a day by a cruel and wasteful storm.

In the aftermath, we have seen fellow citizens left stunned and uprooted, searching for loved ones, and grieving for the dead and looking for meaning in a tragedy that seems so blind and random. We have also witnessed the kind of desperation no citizen of this great and generous nation should ever have to know — fellow Americans calling out for food and water, vulnerable people left at the mercy of criminals who had no mercy, and the bodies of the dead lying uncovered and untended in the street.

These days of sorrow and outrage have also been marked by acts of courage and kindness that make all Americans proud. Coast Guard and other personnel rescued tens of thousands of people from flooded neighborhoods. Religious congregations and families have welcomed strangers as brothers and sisters and neighbors.

In the community of Chalmette, when two men tried to break into a home, the owner invited them to stay and took in 15 other people who had no place to go. At Tulane Hospital for Children, doctors and nurses didn't eat for days so patients could have food, and eventually carried the patients on their backs up eight flights of stairs to helicopters.

Many first responders were victims themselves — wounded healers, with a sense of duty greater than their own suffering. When I met Steve Scott of the Biloxi Fire Department, he and his colleagues were conducting a house-to-house search for survivors. Steve told me this: "I lost my house and I lost my cars, but I still got my family ... and I still got my spirit."

Across the Gulf Coast, among people who have lost much and suffered much and given to the limit of their power, we are seeing that same spirit: a core of strength that survives all hurt, a faith in God no storm can take away and a powerful American determination to clear the ruins and build better than before.

Tonight so many victims of the hurricane and the flood are far from home and friends and familiar things. You need to know that our whole nation cares about you, and in the journey ahead, you are not alone. To all who carry a burden of loss, I extend the deepest sympathy of our country. To every person who has served and sacrificed in this emergency, I offer the gratitude of our country.

And tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. And all who question the future of the Crescent City need to know: There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again.

The work of rescue is largely finished; the work of recovery is moving forward. In nearly all of Mississippi, electric power has been restored. Trade is starting to return to the Port of New Orleans, and agricultural shipments are moving down the Mississippi River. All major gasoline pipelines are now in operation, preventing the supply disruptions that many feared.

The breaks in the levees have been closed, the pumps are running, and the water here in New Orleans is receding by the hour. Environmental officials are on the ground, taking water samples, identifying and dealing with hazardous debris, and working to get drinking water and wastewater treatment systems operating again. And some very sad duties are being carried out by professionals who gather the dead, treat them with respect and prepare them for their rest.

In the task of recovery and rebuilding, some of the hardest work is still ahead and it will require the creative skill and generosity of a united country.

Our first commitment is to meet the immediate needs of those who had to flee their homes and leave all their possessions behind. For these Americans, every night brings uncertainty, every day requires new courage and the months to come will bring more than their fair share of struggles.

The Department of Homeland Security is registering evacuees who are now in shelters, churches or private homes, whether in the Gulf region or far away. I have signed an order providing immediate assistance to people from the disaster area. As of today, more than 500 thousand evacuee families have gotten emergency help to pay for food, clothing and other essentials.

Evacuees who have not yet registered should contact FEMA or the Red Cross. We need to know who you are, because many of you will also be eligible for broader assistance in the future. Many families were separated during the evacuation, and we are working to help you reunite. Please call 1-877-568-3317 — that's 1-877-568-3317 — and we will work to bring your family back together, and pay for your travel to reach them.

In addition, we are taking steps to ensure that evacuees don't have to travel great distances or navigate bureaucracies to get the benefits that are there for them. The Department of Health and Human Services has sent more than 15 hundred health professionals, along with over 50 tons of medical supplies, including vaccines, antibiotics and medicines, for people with chronic conditions such as diabetes. The Social Security Administration is delivering checks. The Department of Labor is helping displaced persons apply for temporary jobs and unemployment benefits. And the Postal Service is registering new addresses so that people can get their mail.

To carry out the first stages of the relief effort and begin the rebuilding at once, I have asked for, and the Congress has provided, more than $60 billion. This is an unprecedented response to an unprecedented crisis, which demonstrates the compassion and resolve of our nation.

Our second commitment is to help the citizens of the Gulf Coast to overcome this disaster, put their lives back together and rebuild their communities. Along this coast, for mile after mile, the wind and water swept the land clean. In Mississippi, many thousands of houses were damaged or destroyed. In New Orleans and surrounding parishes, more than a quarter million houses are no longer safe to live in. Hundreds of thousands of people from across this region will need to find longer-term housing.

Our goal is to get people out of shelters by the middle of October. So we are providing direct assistance to evacuees that allows them to rent apartments, and many already are moving into places of their own. A number of states have taken in evacuees and shown them great compassion, admitting children to school and providing health care. So I will work with Congress to ensure that states are reimbursed for these extra expenses.

In the disaster area and in cities that have received huge numbers of displaced people we are beginning to bring in mobile homes and trailers for temporary use. To relieve the burden on local health care facilities in the region, we are sending extra doctors and nurses to these areas. We are also providing money that can be used to cover overtime pay for police and fire departments while cities and towns rebuild.

Near New Orleans, Biloxi and other cities, housing is urgently needed for police and firefighters, other service providers and the many workers who are going to rebuild those cities. Right now, many are sleeping on ships we have brought to the Port of New Orleans, and more ships are on their way to the region. And we will provide mobile homes and supply them with basic services, as close to the construction areas as possible, so the rebuilding process can go forward as quickly as possible.

And the federal government will undertake a close partnership with the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, the city of New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities so they can rebuild in a sensible, well planned way. Federal funds will cover the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone, from roads and bridges to schools and water systems. Our goal is to get the work done quickly. And taxpayers expect this work to be done honestly and wisely, so we will have a team of inspectors general reviewing all expenditures.

In the rebuilding process, there will be many important decisions and many details to resolve, yet we are moving forward according to some clear principles. The federal government will be fully engaged in the mission, but Governor Barbour, Governor Blanco, Mayor Nagin and other state and local leaders will have the primary role in planning for their own future. Clearly, communities will need to move decisively to change zoning laws and building codes, in order to avoid a repeat of what we have seen. And in the work of rebuilding, as many jobs as possible should go to men and women who live in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

Our third commitment is this: When communities are rebuilt, they must be even better and stronger than before the storm. Within the Gulf region are some of the most beautiful and historic places in America. As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality.

When the streets are rebuilt, there should be many new businesses, including minority-owned businesses, along those streets. When the houses are rebuilt, more families should own, not rent, those houses. When the regional economy revives, local people should be prepared for the jobs being created. Americans want the Gulf Coast not just to survive, but to thrive, not just to cope, but to overcome. We want evacuees to come home for the best of reasons, because they have a real chance at a better life in a place they love.

When one resident of this city who lost his home was asked by a reporter if he would relocate, he said, "Naw, I will rebuild but I'll build higher." That is our vision of the future, in this city and beyond: We will not just rebuild, we will build higher and better.

To meet this goal, I will listen to good ideas from Congress, state and local officials, and the private sector. I believe we should start with three initiatives that the Congress should pass.

Tonight I propose the creation of a Gulf Opportunity Zone, encompassing the region of the disaster in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Within this zone, we should provide immediate incentives for job-creating, investment tax relief for small businesses, incentives to companies that create jobs, and loans and loan guarantees for small businesses, including minority-owned enterprises, to get them up and running again. It is entrepreneurship that creates jobs and opportunity, it is entrepreneurship that helps break the cycle of poverty and we will take the side of entrepreneurs as they lead the economic revival of the Gulf region.

I propose the creation of Worker Recovery Accounts to help those evacuees who need extra help finding work. Under this plan, the federal government would provide accounts of up to $5,000, which these evacuees could draw upon for job training and education to help them get a good job and for child care expenses during their job search.

To help lower-income citizens in the hurricane region build new and better lives, I also propose that Congress pass an Urban Homesteading Act. Under this approach, we will identify property in the region owned by the federal government, and provide building sites to low-income citizens free of charge, through a lottery. In return, they would pledge to build on the lot, with either a mortgage or help from a charitable organization like Habitat for Humanity. Homeownership is one of the great strengths of any community, and it must be a central part of our vision for the revival of this region.

In the long run, the New Orleans area has a particular challenge, because much of the city lies below sea level. The people who call it home need to have reassurance that their lives will be safer in the years to come. Protecting a city that sits lower than the water around it is not easy, but it can and has been done. City and parish officials in New Orleans and state officials in Louisiana will have a large part in the engineering decisions to come, and the Army Corps of Engineers will work at their side to make the flood protection system stronger than it has ever been.

The work that has begun in the Gulf Coast region will be one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen. When that job is done, all Americans will have something to be very proud of, and all Americans are needed in this common effort. It is the armies of compassion — charities and houses of worship and idealistic men and women — that give our reconstruction effort its humanity. They offer to those who hurt a friendly face, an arm around the shoulder and the reassurance that in hard times, they can count on someone who cares. By land, by sea and by air, good people wanting to make a difference deployed to the Gulf Coast, and they have been working around the clock ever since.

The cash needed to support the armies of compassion is great, and Americans have given generously. For example, the private fundraising effort led by former Presidents Bush and Clinton has already received pledges of more than $100 million. Some of that money is going to governors, to be used for immediate needs within their states. A portion will also be sent to local houses of worship, to help reimburse them for the expense of helping others. This evening the need is still urgent, and I ask the American people to continue donating to the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, other good charities and religious congregations in the region.

It is also essential for the many organizations of our country to reach out to your fellow citizens in the Gulf area. So I have asked USA Freedom Corps to create an information clearinghouse, available at usafreedomcorps.gov, so that families anywhere in the country can find opportunities to help families in the region or a school can support a school. And I challenge existing organizations — churches, Scout troops or labor union locals — to get in touch with their counterparts in Mississippi, Louisiana or Alabama, and learn what they can do to help. In this great national enterprise, important work can be done by everyone, and everyone should find their role and do their part.

The government of this nation will do its part as well. Our cities must have clear and up-to-date plans for responding to natural disasters, disease outbreaks or terrorist attack, for evacuating large numbers of people in an emergency and for providing the food, water and security they would need. In a time of terror threats and weapons of mass destruction, the danger to our citizens reaches much wider than a fault line or a flood plain. I consider detailed emergency planning to be a national security priority. Therefore, I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to undertake an immediate review, in cooperation with local counterparts, of emergency plans in every major city in America.

I also want to know all the facts about the government response to Hurricane Katrina. The storm involved a massive flood, a major supply and security operation, and an evacuation order affecting more than a million people. It was not a normal hurricane and the normal disaster relief system was not equal to it. Many of the men and women of the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States military, the National Guard, Homeland Security and state and local governments performed skillfully under the worst conditions. Yet the system, at every level of government, was not well coordinated and was overwhelmed in the first few days. It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces, the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice.

Four years after the frightening experience of September 11th, Americans have every right to expect a more effective response in a time of emergency. When the federal government fails to meet such an obligation, I, as President, am responsible for the problem, and for the solution. So I have ordered every Cabinet secretary to participate in a comprehensive review of the government response to the hurricane. This government will learn the lessons of Hurricane Katrina. We are going to review every action and make necessary changes, so that we are better prepared for any challenge of nature, or act of evil men, that could threaten our people.

The United States Congress also has an important oversight function to perform. Congress is preparing an investigation, and I will work with members of both parties to make sure this effort is thorough.

In the life of this nation, we have often been reminded that nature is an awesome force, and that all life is fragile. We are the heirs of men and women who lived through those first terrible winters at Jamestown and Plymouth, who rebuilt Chicago after a great fire, and San Francisco after a great earthquake, who reclaimed the prairie from the dust bowl of the 1930s. Every time, the people of this land have come back from fire, flood and storm to build anew and to build better than what we had before. Americans have never left our destiny to the whims of nature and we will not start now.

These trials have also reminded us that we are often stronger than we know, with the help of grace and one another. They remind us of a hope beyond all pain and death, a God who welcomes the lost to a house not made with hands. And they remind us that we are tied together in this life, in this nation, and that the despair of any touches us all.

I know that when you sit on the steps of a porch where a home once stood or sleep on a cot in a crowded shelter it is hard to imagine a bright future. But that future will come. The streets of Biloxi and Gulfport will again be filled with lovely homes and the sound of children playing. The churches of Alabama will have their broken steeples mended and their congregations whole. And here in New Orleans, the streetcars will once again rumble down St. Charles, and the passionate soul of a great city will return.

In this place, there is a custom for the funerals of jazz musicians. The funeral procession parades slowly through the streets, followed by a band playing a mournful dirge as it moves to the cemetery. Once the casket has been laid in place, the band breaks into a joyful "second line" symbolizing the triumph of the spirit over death. Tonight the Gulf Coast is still coming through the dirge, yet we will live to see the second line.

Thank you, and may God bless America.

[bsnyder]

Actually, the people I've seen so far freaking out are the Libertarians on the net, the couple of conversative sites I frequent I've looked at have reacted very positively overall.

Agreed.

Although a few Dem blogs are having a hissy fit too.

[Charade]

Although a few Dem blogs are having a hissy fit too.

So what else is new? :rotfl:

[Charade]

I just watched it. (I recorded it). I thought it was good.

[peachgirl]

I almost feel like a Republican asking this...but did I miss the part where he explained how he was going to pay for all this?

Keep in mind, I said almost....;)

The Freepers are having fits!:laughing:

[wvrevy]

Other than the very conservative question posed by my Peachy friend, I have to say that I largely approved of several of "his" ideas. I had to use the quotes there, 'cause the fact is that the speech - though delivered like a freshman in speech class and reading like something an upperclassman might write in poli sci (a junior...maybe) - sounded awfully close to something that a liberal president would have given. Government handouts of land ? Money for schooling and professional education ? Encouraging minority business ownership ? The link between racism and poverty ? All liberal ideas that I'm glad the president is apparently listening to.

But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. First, he's got to figure out how to pay for it - or, at least, someone does. Then, he's got to get the Republicans in congress on board, which will be no easy task.

Basically, I'm cautiously optimistic about what was proposed. Now we wait to see how much of it is turned into reality.

[What the Heck]

i was shocked that he said racism creates poverty
its true but i didnt think he would say itSo in places there is no racism there is no poverty? There wasn't any poverty in past countries, such as Rome, Greece, Judea, Egypt?

[crazyforgoofy]

So in places there is no racism there is no poverty? There wasn't any poverty in past countries, such as Rome, Greece, Judea, Egypt?

I don't believe he said racism is the only thing that creates poverty. Hey, you voted for him, not me. You ask him what he thinks.

[DawnCt1]

If he expands the idea of "enterprise zones" , which I hope his "Gulf Opportunity Zone" is, by giving tax breaks to investors, eliminating capital gains tax on investment in that area, low interest loans, etc, then a lot of the money could come from the private sector. By lowering taxes investment could be generated, businesses could grow and flourish. Its a concept that works every time. Ct. is currently experiencing the reverse of that. Investors, business and entrepreneurs are leaving the state because the democratically controlled state congress, with the governor looking the other way, is constantly exploring ways to tax business even more. States that have made their business climate friendly are finding that their growth is rapidly accelerating. I hope and I would trust that this is, in part, what President Bush has in mind. With this much money flooding into the area, we need someone who can oversee this enterprise with a CEO's instinks. I think it would be a great job for Jack Welch, former CEO of GE.

[bsnyder]

George W. Bush:

As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.

[Charade]

George W. Bush:


I guess I'd like to know why it's still persistent with all of the money poured into social programs over the last 40 or 50 years.

[DawnCt1]

George W. Bush:

I hoping also that his approach to poverty will not be a "hand out" but a "hand up". The welfare cycle needs to be broken because its a culture that becomes ingrained and handed down for generations. There are those, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, whose livelihoods depend upon perpetuating racism and poverty and whose rhetoric is devisive.

[bsnyder]

I guess I'd like to know why it's still persistent with all of the money poured into social programs over the last 40 or 50 years.

What is the it you are refering to? Poverty?

[Charade]

What is the it you are refering to? Poverty?

Yes..

[luvthatduke]

I was impressed with the scope of the speech,
and hope it was well-received by most of the victims who watched.

I think the President, whom I was very disappointed in this
past week or so (I voted for him & support him),
said some very pointed things, didn't skirt the issues,
and faced the complaints head-on.

Regarding the racism/poverty issue brought up here,
Bet has already quoted what I was going to put here
but I'll add that the overall tone of the address
made me feel that there are very concrete ideas
that will at least be attempted, and at every level.
I think the President's comments on home-ownership
and business-ownership were well placed and needed.

Like others have said, I will wait & see how the ideas
presented are worked out. I do hope & pray that everyone
in government - local & on up - remain focused on how
to help those who need it now, as well as how to help
our nation in the future.

I'm curious to know of liberal reaction (here & elsewhere)
to the remarks about a broader scope of action/reaction
for the federal gov't. and also the military.
Anyone?

[bsnyder]

With regards to those who were living in poverty in New Orleans, I don't think money alone will help, if we're not wlling to address the problems inherent in the breakdown of families.

[Charade]

With regards to those who were living in poverty in New Orleans, I don't think money alone will help, if we're not wlling to address the problems inherent in the breakdown of families.

I agree.

[luvthatduke]

I agree.

Me, too.

[snoopy]

But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. First, he's got to figure out how to pay for it - or, at least, someone does. Then, he's got to get the Republicans in congress on board, which will be no easy task.

Basically, I'm cautiously optimistic about what was proposed. Now we wait to see how much of it is turned into reality.

You said it wvrevy. The devil is indeed in the details.

Overall, though, I feel exactly as you do, cautiously optimistic. I did think he delivered a really good speech, the best I've seen him since 9/11.

[BuckNaked]

My biggest concern is the way so much of the money is basically being turned over to NOLA and LA officials.

[Laura]

My biggest concern is the way so much of the money is basically being turned over to NOLA and LA officials.

I dunno; it makes sense to me. They know their communities better than the feds.



Cautiously optimistic? Sure, I guess I could say I'm in that camp. But Bush blew his support after 9/11 big time, so I don't hold out much optimism that he'll follow through here. But we'll see. I'd be happy to be proved mistaken! :)

[BuckNaked]

I dunno; it makes sense to me. They know their communities better than the feds.

Fine - then they can ask for what they want and get it. But to just give them the cash is an invitation to have it tossed into the toilet.

[Miss Jasmine]

Fine - then they can ask for what they want and get it. But to just give them the cash is an invitation to have it tossed into the toilet.
Agreed, especialy with its history of corruption.

[gina2000]

So in places there is no racism there is no poverty? There wasn't any poverty in past countries, such as Rome, Greece, Judea, Egypt?

I believe at least some of these places practiced slavery. That, in and of itself, indicates superiority and racism.


I was out last night and only now read the context of the speech. I applaud all of it. I just hope, we as a nation, can respond to the challenge of rebuilding. I'd hate to see watered down responses in Congress and on the voting ballot.

[toto2]

In regard to the comment on the money that was given to social programs over the years and why then is there stil poverty: There is not one explication for poverty and no one solution for it. You dont just trow money and make it disapear. And the easy answer for us more well off people is often is : they are lazy , they dont want to get out of it. I dont know the answers , but they are not as simple as that. It is not , excuse the pun , white or black , but a lot of shades of grey. There was alway poor people and there always will be. But one thing is certain , is is not by judging the poor as hopless that we will help them.

[crazyforgoofy]

Fine - then they can ask for what they want and get it. But to just give them the cash is an invitation to have it tossed into the toilet.

Can they do worse than the administration had done in Iraq? Where'd all that money go? Talk about a toilet, but wait the Iraqi people don't have plumbing or water, do they.


And then there's Haliburton...

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Can they do worse than the administration had done in Iraq? Where'd all that money go? Talk about a toilet, but wait the Iraqi people don't have plumbing or water, do they.


And then there's Haliburton...


Are there currently terrorists in New Orleans sabotaging our efforts?

What about Haliburton? (Did you cue evil music in the background?) :rolleyes:

[cats7494]

I was surprised - it was actually a good speech by Bush with some good ideas...

I guess I can say I am in the "cautiously optimistic camp" like others here.
I will believe it only when I see it, I am sorry to say. I truly hope that he and his administration do follow through with the ideas.

Although, I do wonder where the money will come from - as another poster asked earlier. Bush may have to get rid of those tax cuts he imposed after all!

[peachgirl]

Bush may have to get rid of those tax cuts he imposed after all!

That's not going to happen. They'll just add it to the deficit and let the next generation (for those who have kids...that means YOUR children) figure out how to pay the bill.

[cats7494]

That's not going to happen. They'll just add it to the deficit and let the next generation (for those who have kids...that means YOUR children) figure out how to pay the bill.

:sad2: I truly hope not...that is just irresponsible!
Personally - I don't mind paying extra taxes to help those in need.

[crazyforgoofy]

Are there currently terrorists in New Orleans sabotaging our efforts?

What about Haliburton? (Did you cue evil music in the background?) :rolleyes:

This might give you some insight into Halliburton.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

[DawnCt1]

:sad2: I truly hope not...that is just irresponsible!
Personally - I don't mind paying extra taxes to help those in need.

Personally, I feel we pay enough in taxes, BUT if you feel that you don't, you can donate money to the IRS. There is actually a program for that. I really believe that anyone who feels that they aren't taxed enough should take advantage of that program. You can donate your entire pay check if you wish.

[Bichon Barb]

Personally, I feel we pay enough in taxes, BUT if you feel that you don't, you can donate money to the IRS. There is actually a program for that. I really believe that anyone who feels that they aren't taxed enough should take advantage of that program. You can donate your entire pay check if you wish.


Or we could just let those who voted for Bush in the last election pay the bill for Iraq.

[cats7494]

Personally, I feel we pay enough in taxes, BUT if you feel that you don't, you can donate money to the IRS. There is actually a program for that. I really believe that anyone who feels that they aren't taxed enough should take advantage of that program. You can donate your entire pay check if you wish.


Dawn - thank you so very much for your advice, I will keep it in as much consideration as you gave me.

[chadfromdallas]

:sad2: I truly hope not...that is just irresponsible!


Has Bush ever been known to be responsible with money? :magnify:

$200B here, $200B there, $300 on a bill for a bunch of roads and trails....The man wouldn't know how to handle a dollar if he was handed instructions. :rotfl:

[sodaseller]

Other than the very conservative question posed by my Peachy friend, I have to say that I largely approved of several of "his" ideas.

His speeches are usually acceptable on a broad basis. It's the execution that is often objectionable

[BuckNaked]

And then there's Haliburton...

If Haliburton is getting the job done on the Gulf Coast, how is that throwing money down the toilet?

[wvrevy]

If Haliburton is getting the job done on the Gulf Coast, how is that throwing money down the toilet?
It's a no-bid contract to a company that the vice president used to chair. You seriously don't think that's a little strange ?

See...the problem with no-bid contracts and cost plus contract provisions is that you don't open it up to the possibility of getting the job done less expensively. There is no incentive for the company to do anything but maximize its profits at the government's expense.

And if it were a democrat handing out multiple billions of dollars to a former company of his, you'd be screaming from the rooftops, along with everybody else that defends Haliburton.

[BuckNaked]

It's a no-bid contract to a company that the vice president used to chair. You seriously don't think that's a little strange ?

I might, if it weren't for the fact that they had been awarded no bid contracts prior to this administration as well.

See...the problem with no-bid contracts and cost plus contract provisions is that you don't open it up to the possibility of getting the job done less expensively. There is no incentive for the company to do anything but maximize its profits at the government's expense.

Yep. And the problem with conventional procurement instruments is that the bidding process is sometimes longer than is beneficial to the government or agency that needs the work done. No-bid contracts are not a new thing, nor is Halliburton the only beneficiary of these types of contracts. Another thing to consider is that unless a contract is firm-fixed performance based, you don't know at the beginning what the actual cost is going to be anyway. The burn rates involved in conventional contract vehicles often mean that the work either a) doesn't get done or b) gets done but costs more, often much more, than the original contracted amount.

And if it were a democrat handing out multiple billions of dollars to a former company of his, you'd be screaming from the rooftops, along with everybody else that defends Haliburton.

Actually no, I wouldn't. And do you seriously think that the President and/or VP review every single contract that is let by the federal government? There isn't anyone in the government that knows the details of every single contract.

[JoeEpcotRocks]

This might give you some insight into Halliburton.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

:rotfl:
Yeah, that's an unbiased, objective web site. (No evil music sound track though, how dissapointing.)

[crazyforgoofy]

:rotfl:
Yeah, that's an unbiased, objective web site. (No evil music sound track though, how dissapointing.)


Hey, you think Faux News is unbiased, dontcha? :confused3

[Free4Life11]

I don't even know what Haliburton is....construction??

[ThAnswr]

I was impressed with the scope of the speech,
and hope it was well-received by most of the victims who watched.

I think the President, whom I was very disappointed in this
past week or so (I voted for him & support him),
said some very pointed things, didn't skirt the issues,
and faced the complaints head-on.

Regarding the racism/poverty issue brought up here,
Bet has already quoted what I was going to put here
but I'll add that the overall tone of the address
made me feel that there are very concrete ideas
that will at least be attempted, and at every level.
I think the President's comments on home-ownership
and business-ownership were well placed and needed.

Like others have said, I will wait & see how the ideas
presented are worked out. I do hope & pray that everyone
in government - local & on up - remain focused on how
to help those who need it now, as well as how to help
our nation in the future.

I'm curious to know of liberal reaction (here & elsewhere)
to the remarks about a broader scope of action/reaction
for the federal gov't. and also the military.
Anyone?

I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Call me a cynic, but I believe last night's speech came about for 3 reasons:

1) Bush failed to get a bounce in the polls for his first visits to the Gulf coast (or one that lasted more than a few days)

2) Bush failed to get a bounce on the 9/11 anniversary

3) Bush failed to get a bounce after his "I take full responsiblity" statement.

Again, call me a cynic, but what was proposed last night was a grand plan along the lines of the New Deal. The New Deal had FDR and last night's grand plan has..............George W. Bush.

Hahahahahahaha............broke myself up with that one.

[ThAnswr]

I hoping also that his approach to poverty will not be a "hand out" but a "hand up". The welfare cycle needs to be broken because its a culture that becomes ingrained and handed down for generations. There are those, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, whose livelihoods depend upon perpetuating racism and poverty and whose rhetoric is devisive.

It should work better than the administration's usual approach "the finger-up".

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Hey, you think Faux News is unbiased, dontcha? :confused3

You must mean Fox News.

Yes they are biased -- they root for our troops and the success of this great nation. :sunny:

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Call me a cynic, but I believe last night's speech came about for 3 reasons:

1) Bush failed to get a bounce in the polls for his first visits to the Gulf coast (or one that lasted more than a few days)

2) Bush failed to get a bounce on the 9/11 anniversary

3) Bush failed to get a bounce after his "I take full responsiblity" statement.

Again, call me a cynic, but what was proposed last night was a grand plan along the lines of the New Deal. The New Deal had FDR and last night's grand plan has..............George W. Bush.

Hahahahahahaha............broke myself up with that one.

You're a riot. :rolleyes:

Polls?? Bush can't run for re-election.

You must be confused with the infamous poll watching of "he who cannot be named."

[Charade]

It should work better than the administration's usual approach "the finger-up".


Really? Bush has spent the most on domestic programs (including education) than just about any other president.

[BuckNaked]

It's a no-bid contract to a company that the vice president used to chair. You seriously don't think that's a little strange ?



Whoa, wait a minute, I just learned something new!! I was reading the Post a few minutes ago, and there was a small article in there that mentioned KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary that is working on the coast, and it mentioned that the contract WAS bid competitively. I went to see if the story was on-line, did a search on the Post and found this, from 4 Sep:

WASHINGTON -- A Halliburton Co. subsidiary that has come under fire for its reconstruction work in Iraq has begun tapping a $500 million Navy contract to do emergency repairs at Gulf Coast naval and Marine facilities that were battered by Hurricane Katrina.

The subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root Services Inc. of Arlington, Va., was awarded the competitive bid contract last July to provide debris removal and other emergency work associated with natural disasters.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/04/AR2005090400810.html


I guess we can burn that strawman now... ;)

[bsnyder]

I guess we can burn that strawman now... ;)

A little smoke among friends, eh? :)

[DisDuck]

Another Constitional lesson.. Bush hasn't spent a dime. Power of the purse is in the hands of The House of Representatives. All appropriation bills must originate in this body. All any President can do is submit a request and then it is up to congress to decide.

Congress decided to build a bridge from mainland Alaska to an island with a population of 50 people even though those people did not ask for it.

Unfortunately, our writers of the constitution did not realize how sprendthrift all congresses would be and left out a 'line item veto' provision. They thought that a President could control a spend-away congress by threat of veto. However, Bush has not vetoed anything yet. So if he thinks congress spends way too much then he must approve as he has not vetoed any appropriation bill.

Furthermore, monies being appropriated does not equal monies being spent. Just look at the 'great' :rotfl2: landmark legislation No Child Left Behind. Money requested/appropriated versus actual Money spent. The law itself states that in order to be held to its standards full federal funding must be provided to a state so that it can meet the laws goals. Yet state after state has indicated that they must use local money to meet the goals; thereby, taking from 'peter' to pay 'paul'.

Now today Bush says no tax increase to pay for Katrina. Spending should be cut. Sounds noble but based on past experience including The Great Society programs of LBJ, one cannot fight a war overseas and reconstruct at home on just spending cuts. Besides what programs will be cut?? Certainly not the 'pork' programs.

According to some things I have read, Bush's agenda to cut 'entitlement' programs will be brought up in congress. It is some of these very programs that are currently aiding those who suffer from Katrina. Now before anyone starts calling me a 'bleeding' heart liberal, I believe that these programs can absorb cuts; however, this is not the time for them because it will cause more pain to the victims of Katrina and slow recovery.

As a Libertarian, I detest most sizes of government, big or small. But if there is one useful purpose for government it is to provide for cases like Katrina where an individual no longer has the means to recover. By necessity there must be a safety net so that society/community in general does not break down. I much favor the individual over the group but with the 'group/society' the individual cannot survive. The old cliche, No Man Is An Island is true. And it is times like this that individuals must band together to preserve the 'group'. At this scale only a large 'group', ie. government can best serve the individual. Just based on the obvious cronism (more so than in some past administrations; less so than in some past administrations) I don't have confidence in the recovery done properly.

[crazyforgoofy]

Interesting take on it. What I noticed in that article was

Halliburton Co. subsidiary that has come under fire for its reconstruction work in Iraq has begun tapping

[Laurajean1014]

thats what all the networks are saying
conservatives are freakin out at some of the stuff he said



Can you specify which conservatives? From what I have heard they are praising him for his candor/Democratics alike.

[BuckNaked]

Interesting take on it. What I noticed in that article was

Halliburton Co. subsidiary that has come under fire for its reconstruction work in Iraq has begun tapping

Of course you would notice that - I woud expect nothing less. :rotfl:

I guess you missed the part about KBR having won the contract in competitive bidding. Or is that suddenly not the issue anymore?

[LastTycoon]

Can you specify which conservatives? From what I have heard they are praising him for his candor/Democratics alike.


In the New York Times, Mickey Edwards, a former GOP congressman from Oklahoma, said Bush's speech missed the mark: "He was giving a speech as if the nation were disheartened and worried and had lost its spirit, but that's not what people were thinking. They were thinking, 'Why did the government screw up?'"

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn -- last seen working a crossword puzzle during the confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts -- bristled at Bush's plan for a $200 billion reconstruction effort. "I don't believe that everything that should happen in Louisiana should be paid for by the rest of the country," Coburn told the Times. "I believe there are certain responsibilities that are due the people of Louisiana." South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint chimed in that "throwing more and more money without accountability . . . is not going to solve the problem."

As Jonathan Chait notes in the Los Angeles Times, Tom DeLay is complaining that there's no way to pay for a massive rebuilding effort along the Gulf Coast because there's not enough pork to be cut to cover the cost. "After 11 years of Republican majority," DeLay says, "we've pared [the budget] down pretty good."

Why are Republicans, who have spent the better part of five years marching in lockstep with their president, suddenly going sideways on him? Part of it is the president's unpopularity, and part of it is that Bush is -- relatively speaking -- a short-timer. He needs to put on a big show of helping the Gulf Coast to recover from his stumbling performance in the early days of the disaster, but he'll be enjoying his retirement on Trent Lott's new porch by the time the bill comes due. Members of Congress will have to deal with the financial ramifications down the line -- especially if they ignore them now -- and they aren't necessarily happy about picking up the tab then to get Bush out of a jam now. As one senior House Republican official tells the Times, "We are not sure he knows what he is getting into."

[wvrevy]

You must mean Fox News.

Yes they are biased -- they root for our troops and the success of this great nation. :sunny:
So, then, you admit that they aren't journalists ? :confused3 IF you knew the first thing about journalism, you'd know that they are supposed to be impartial observers, not cheerleaders.

[BuckNaked]

So, then, you admit that they aren't journalists ? :confused3 IF you knew the first thing about journalism, you'd know that they are supposed to be impartial observers, not cheerleaders.


I agree, but that same standard applies to all journalists. Unfortunately, there are very few true journalists around these days. Almost all of them display their biases, be they right or left.

[wvrevy]

Of course you would notice that - I woud expect nothing less. :rotfl:

I guess you missed the part about KBR having won the contract in competitive bidding. Or is that suddenly not the issue anymore?

I'm sorry...did I mention Haliburton in reference to Katrina ?

From the New York Times:
Mr. Skinner, a former acting inspector general of FEMA, would not discuss details of the accusations his office had received in recent days involving hurricane relief projects. But he said he was dispatching about 30 investigators and auditors to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama next week to "focus on prevention, to prevent things from going wrong" in the way the disaster money is spent.

He said that his investigators would focus on several no-bid contracts awarded over the last two weeks to large, politically influential companies, including the Fluor Corporation of California, a major donor to the Republican Party, and the Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, La. Shaw is a client of Joe M. Allbaugh, a consultant who is the former head of FEMA and was President Bush's campaign manager in 2000.

Another of Mr. Allbaugh's clients - Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the giant defense contractor once led by Vice President Dick Cheney - is doing major repairs at Navy facilities along the Gulf Coast that were damaged by the hurricane. That work is being done under a $500 million contract with the Defense Department.



Full Article - Official Vows Investigation of NoBid Contracts (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/national/nationalspecial/14spend.html)

I believe that last contract is the one to which you are referring. however, it wasn't the one I was talking about.

[wvrevy]

I agree, but that same standard applies to all journalists. Unfortunately, there are very few true journalists around these days. Almost all of them display their biases, be they right or left.
So, if they criticize, they are showing bias ? Isn't that their job ? The whole purpose of a free press is to serve as a watchdog of government, not a lapdog.

[BuckNaked]

I'm sorry...did I mention Haliburton in reference to Katrina ?

Unless there's another company that used to be chaired by the VP, then yes:

It's a no-bid contract to a company that the vice president used to chair. You seriously don't think that's a little strange ?

We were talking about Halliburton contracts for Katrina when you made the above comment. To which company were you referring, if not Halliburton?



I believe that last contract is the one to which you are referring. however, it wasn't the one I was talking about.

Then I'll ask again...since we were discussing Halliburton Katrina contracts when you made the comment about the company formerly chaired by the VP, to which company were you referring?

So, if they criticize, they are showing bias ?

If it's a journalist doing the criticizing, and not a commentator, then yes, that journalist is showing bias.

Isn't that their job ?

You just said a couple of posts ago that:

IF you knew the first thing about journalism, you'd know that they are supposed to be impartial observers, not cheerleaders.

If they are leveling criticisms, they cease being impartial observers. Impartial observers relate what is going on. Biased commentators make judgements, followed by praise or criticism about what they observe.

[wvrevy]

Unless there's another company that used to be chaired by the VP, then yes:

We were talking about Halliburton contracts for Katrina when you made the above comment. To which company were you referring, if not Halliburton?

Then I'll ask again...since we were discussing Halliburton Katrina contracts when you made the comment about the company formerly chaired by the VP, to which company were you referring?
Sorry...My mistake...I'm so used to no-bid contracts going to Haliburton, I guess I got carried away. Obviously, it was the former chairman of Bush's campaign committee...That's so much better. :teeth:
If it's a journalist doing the criticizing, and not a commentator, then yes, that journalist is showing bias.
If a journalist asks why it took federal relief efforts so long, and whether or not troop deployment in Iraq caused a delay, would you consider that "criticizing" ? Since I've seen people label reporters as "biased" for asking just such a question, I would have to assume that you would.
If they are leveling criticisms, they cease being impartial observers. Impartial observers relate what is going on. Biased commentators make judgements, followed by praise or criticism about what they observe.
No. An impartial observer can comment on what they are observing. You do not have to be "biased" to make a critical - or supportive, for that matter - judgement. They do not have to be nothing more than a tape recorder for wha tis being said and a video camera for what is being seen. They can also - objectively - critique those things, for the benefit of the consumer. That does not make them biased.

[BuckNaked]

Sorry...My mistake...I'm so used to no-bid contracts going to Haliburton, I guess I got carried away. Obviously, it was the former chairman of Bush's campaign committee...That's so much better. :teeth:

Shaw - yes, that's the one that hired President Bush's former campaign chairman as a consultant. But have you looked at who the CEO of Shaw is? Let me help you out: He is Jim Bernhard, the current chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party. Another Shaw executive was the chairman of Gov. Blanco's campaign. So let's not pretend that only companies with Republican ties are getting reconstruction contracts.


An impartial observer can comment on what they are observing. You do not have to be "biased" to make a critical - or supportive, for that matter - judgement.

You stated earlier on this thread that real journalists aren't supposed to be cheerleaders, so which is it? If they can't make positive comments without being termed biased, then how can they make negative comments without being termed biased?

[wvrevy]

Shaw - yes, that's the one that hired President Bush's former campaign chairman as a consultant. But have you looked at who the CEO of Shaw is? Let me help you out: He is Jim Bernhard, the current chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party. Another Shaw executive was the chairman of Gov. Blanco's campaign. So let's not pretend that only companies with Republican ties are getting reconstruction contracts.
Frankly, I don't care if the Chairman of the Board is Ted Kennedy...No bid contracts are an open invitiation to corruption. It's a bad practice in any case, but when the bid goes to the company of a former political cronie, it just makes it that much worse.
You stated earlier on this thread that real journalists aren't supposed to be cheerleaders, so which is it? If they can't make positive comments without being termed biased, then how can they make negative comments without being termed biased?
We seem to have a disconnect here, somewhere, Brenda. You can offer supportive comments without becoming a cheerleader. Equally, you can offer critical comments without becoming a political hack. The secret is to offer both as equally and fairly as you can manage, so that the consumer gets a full picture of the positives and negatives of any given story. Are there people out there that offer nothing but criticism? Of course. But I would not consider them "journalists" in the truist sense. More like political commentators and columnists. But just as there are those that offer nothing but criticism, there are also plenty that offer nothing but praise. If it were only the Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's that I were talking about, there would be no problem, as they are balanced by the Bill Maher's and Jon Stewart's. But when Fox News is doing a news broadcast - not a political talk show - I would expect them to refrain from praising Bush at every turn without ever offering an ounce of critical comments.

I actually saw a debate about this subject years ago, during the first gulf war. The debate centered around calling the US soldiers "our" soldiers in news broadcasts. Stations like CNN and papers like the Washington Post repeatedly referred to them as "US soldiers", thereby detaching themselves from the story (ie...they weren't putting themselves on one side or the other). Meanwhile, newscasters on Fox and "reporters" for papers like the Washington Times referred to them as "our" American soldiers, thereby putting the reader on notice that they were unlikely to be getting an unbiased look at events from that source.

I know that seems like a trivial difference, seeing as how CNN newscasts and the Post are written by Americans. But the point of an independant press is to give the consumer an honest look at events, as they are. Yes, commentary can be offered, but that commentary can't lean heavily one way or the other, or it does risk becoming "biased" to one side of any issue. The job of the press is to keep people informed, not to convince them of the correctness of one side over the other.

[BuckNaked]

Frankly, I don't care if the Chairman of the Board is Ted Kennedy...No bid contracts are an open invitiation to corruption. It's a bad practice in any case, but when the bid goes to the company of a former political cronie, it just makes it that much worse.

That's the point I was making - it isn't the company of a former political cronie.


We seem to have a disconnect here, somewhere, Brenda. You can offer supportive comments without becoming a cheerleader. Equally, you can offer critical comments without becoming a political hack. The secret is to offer both as equally and fairly as you can manage, so that the consumer gets a full picture of the positives and negatives of any given story. Are there people out there that offer nothing but criticism? Of course. But I would not consider them "journalists" in the truist sense. More like political commentators and columnists. But just as there are those that offer nothing but criticism, there are also plenty that offer nothing but praise. If it were only the Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's that I were talking about, there would be no problem, as they are balanced by the Bill Maher's and Jon Stewart's. But when Fox News is doing a news broadcast - not a political talk show - I would expect them to refrain from praising Bush at every turn without ever offering an ounce of critical comments.



There isn't a a disconnect, we just don't agree.


I actually saw a debate about this subject years ago, during the first gulf war. The debate centered around calling the US soldiers "our" soldiers in news broadcasts. Stations like CNN and papers like the Washington Post repeatedly referred to them as "US soldiers", thereby detaching themselves from the story (ie...they weren't putting themselves on one side or the other). Meanwhile, newscasters on Fox and "reporters" for papers like the Washington Times referred to them as "our" American soldiers, thereby putting the reader on notice that they were unlikely to be getting an unbiased look at events from that source.


Call me silly, but I would expect an American journalist on an American newscast to be on the American side in a war. They are "our" soliders, whether you agree with what they are doing or not. And to say that a news source isn't really journalism simply because they acknowledge that they are "our" soldiers is ridiculous, IMO.

[What the Heck]

So, if they criticize, they are showing bias ? Isn't that their job ? The whole purpose of a free press is to serve as a watchdog of government, not a lapdog.If they criticize without facts behind them, then yes, that is biased. The journalists that were in NO were all saying "why isn't the government doing something, why isn't the government doing something" and it was all about why the federal government wasn't doing anything. The State and local governments would get nods of "yes they are guilty" but when it came to specifics, it was almost all about how the feds should have been in there right after Katrina. For whatever reason, they didn't bother to look at who should have been there, or even (in some cases) who the National Guard belongs to. They didn't care. They had horrific pictures to look at, and some (such as Newsweek) could bring out an article of how the President should have done more sooner. "How Bush Blew It" isn't exactly a title that says that others made mistakes as well. And in the article, Blanco and the Mayor got a total of what, 3 or 4 paragraphs that they might have done something earlier, but the feds should moved in a lot sooner. Thats fair and balanced? The free press should serve as a watchdog, not a lapdog of one particular party.

[peachgirl]

.No bid contracts are an open invitiation to corruption. It's a bad practice in any case, but when the bid goes to the company of a former political cronie, it just makes it that much worse.

I agree, however the notion that they got the federal contract based on their Democratic connections is laughable.

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows, but in this case I would imagine that President Bush's former campaign manager turned lobbyist Allbaugh is the connection that worked for them. I guess the new name for paid lobbyists is "consultant".:rotfl2: Allbaugh is registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root.

I seriously doubt anyone in the White House is out to do favors for the Dem's in LA.

Of course there are others, but everyone I've seen so far has deep political ties to the White House.

[BuckNaked]

I agree, however the notion that they got the federal contract based on their Democratic connections is laughable.

I agree that it would be laughable, but of course no one has said or implied that that's the reason Shaw got the contract. My point was that they got the contract even though the CEO is an influential Democrat, which leads me to believe they got it because they were best able to do the job. But then again, I don't assume that every single contract award is a result of some political conspiracy...


Of course there are others, but everyone I've seen so far has deep political ties to the White House.

So the fact that KBR won the contract in a competitive bid means nothing? It was still "fixed" as far you're concerned.

[JimB.]

"After 11 years of Republican majority," DeLay says, "we've pared [the budget] down pretty good."

Oh, this has got be be the FUNNIEST pile of cr...... uh, poop I have heard in quite some time.

There is so much pork in the fed's budget that the FITW line on my paycheck smells like bacon.

BTW, I'm a conservative, probably soon to be ex-Republican if this is the best that my party can do...........................

[ThAnswr]

Oh, this has got be be the FUNNIEST pile of cr...... uh, poop I have heard in quite some time.

There is so much pork in the fed's budget that the FITW line on my paycheck smells like bacon.

BTW, I'm a conservative, probably soon to be ex-Republican if this is the best that my party can do...........................

Sorry to say, that's the best your party can do. After 10 years of a Republican controlled Congress, and after 4 of Republican controlled Congress/White House, what you see is what you get. This is it.

The Republicans have created debt up to our grandchildren's eyeballs and the only way they're keeping this country from economic collapse is by selling bits and pieces of the US to other countries, notably China. If this isn't setting up a scenario for disaster, I don't know what is.

This country is headed in the wrong direction and it's time for a change. The alternative is the same old-same old from the same old-same old. And no amount of political/campaign rhetoric is going to change that.

Frankly, Jim, you're not the only Republican who's had it with the status quo.

[JoeEpcotRocks]

So, then, you admit that they aren't journalists ? :confused3 IF you knew the first thing about journalism, you'd know that they are supposed to be impartial observers, not cheerleaders.

Spare me your usual insults.

They have journalists and commentators. Of course they root for our troops and for the success of our nation. Nothing controversial about that, unless you want our troops and our nation to fail.

Not tell me the journalists of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and the BBC are just impartial observers. Not buying it.

[MrGrumpy222]

I'm still mulling it over. I liked the ending - the reminders of other historic disasters that we, as a nation, have overcome.

But one thing I keep thinking. If they're going to rebuild all these homes and businesses in the same places, don't they have to fix the levees FIRST? NOLA could have another hurricane next month, or next year.

Ya know. That would seem like an obvious point but when you give it some thought you are very correct to ask this question. I can only hope that someone involved in the project has asked it too.
Cheers,
:wave:

[MrGrumpy222]

thats what all the networks are saying
conservatives are freakin out at some of the stuff he said

I am conservative! It is the wacky far right freaking out! What's being done is needed! ;)

[Laugh O. Grams]

They have journalists and commentators.

How about Fox News anchor David Asman's interview with Trent Lott when he asked Lott why a compromise on the filibuster was needed when "we" had the votes for the "nuclear option?"

From the May 25th edition of Fox News Live: "So Senator, if we should have done it and if we had the votes to do it in the Senate----if you guys in the Republican Party did----then they did you need a compromise."

Opps!!! Nice recovery, Davey Boy!!

[Laugh O. Grams]

I am conservative! It is the wacky far right freaking out! What's being done is needed! ;)
You call them the wacky far right...the republican leadership calls them their base!!

My FIL is a far religious right-fiscally conservative neocon and he is deeply angered by the President's comments in his speech.

If he goes through with them, I'll be thrilled. I personally don't care when they come from, but if it takes President Bush to float some serious, deeply held progressive Democrat positions on social and econmomic reform, I'm all for it. Glad to see that many of the typically Conservative posters are going along with his ideas!! Way to go guys!! The kool aid works no matter what the idea, I'm glad to see!

[peachgirl]

I am conservative! It is the wacky far right freaking out! What's being done is needed! ;)

Which is it? Conservative or Independent?

I am an Independent and the obvious attempt of the crazy left and the crazy right to politicize this is sickening.

Pesky litttle details, huh?

[MrGrumpy222]

Which is it? Conservative or Independent?



Pesky litttle details, huh?

What details are you referring to. When I say I am an idependent I mean I have no party of affiliation and I maintain a conservative point of view. Sorry but your cute attempt failed peachgirl. Unlike the far left I think for my self and agree with members of congress from both parties on certain issues. It is the staunch party members that swallow anything that comes from the pulpit of their mouth pieces. Try again next time! :earboy2:

[cats7494]

What details are you referring to. When I say I am an idependent I mean I have no party of affiliation and I maintain a conservative point of view. Sorry but your cute attempt failed peachgirl. Unlike the far left I think for my self and agree with members of congress from both parties on certain issues. It is the staunch party members that swallow anything that comes from the pulpit of their mouth pieces. Try again next time! :earboy2:

Nice assumption...try responding without attacking a particular party next time.

[dutchess 1968]

First off, we need to help in Louisiana as a group effort..partician politics should not be at work here! I believe Mr. Bush has a huge heart and cares about people, I just think he is somewhat dogmatic about others who are not in the same economic bracket as he. (he has never been in their shoes, hence he can not relate)

I just have one simple question, if we are piling all this money into Louisiana, where is the money coming from?? Yes, we will cut what Mr. Bush deems is not necessary to "his" economy.

I am a school teacher, and when economic cutbacks start to take place they usually get driven into the souls of children who need them. Programs like head-start and Title One get cut as well as music and art programs. These programs are the only thing some under privilidge children have. It's there only hope of accomplishing anything outside of the drugs and bad living conditions they see day in and day out.

So, while all this money is a wonderful thing..I just find it really interesting that we have a national debt beyond belief, children have no health care, homlessless is at an all time high (no matter what part of the country you are in) and what money we did have went to Iraq. So tell me..is there a money tree that Mr. Bush is going to go grow?

These are just my thoughts but if anyone has a clue how to answer them..please email me..let me know.

Thanks

[MrGrumpy222]

Nice assumption...try responding without attacking a particular party next time.

What assumption would that be. It is not my fault that the party of J.F.K. has been hijacked by the extreem left with the likes of that wacky Gov. from Vermont. Hey there are nuts in the Republican party such as Pat Roberts and and alike. But none of you have the guts to admit when some of your party members go too far. I don't subscribe to partisan ideals but it is obvious many of you sheep follow your crazy shepards. It is a shame. Bush has made many mistakes, this is a fact. I don't remember him running on the "Walk on Water" campaign. Until you guys can admit that some of the far left have politicized the tragedy of Katrina and caused some racial tensions, than it is plain to see that you are narrow-minded and intolerant of anyone who has a dissenting point of view. I can't help but attack a party, it just so happens to be the Democrats this time, that has done more harm to the harmony of the American people of late than good. If you are a Democrat and are offended, too bad! Get over your elitist self. :earboy2:

[MrGrumpy222]

First off, we need to help in Louisiana as a group effort..partician politics should not be at work here! I believe Mr. Bush has a huge heart and cares about people, I just think he is somewhat dogmatic about others who are not in the same economic bracket as he. (he has never been in their shoes, hence he can not relate)

I just have one simple question, if we are piling all this money into Louisiana, where is the money coming from?? Yes, we will cut what Mr. Bush deems is not necessary to "his" economy.

I am a school teacher, and when economic cutbacks start to take place they usually get driven into the souls of children who need them. Programs like head-start and Title One get cut as well as music and art programs. These programs are the only thing some under privilidge children have. It's there only hope of accomplishing anything outside of the drugs and bad living conditions they see day in and day out.

So, while all this money is a wonderful thing..I just find it really interesting that we have a national debt beyond belief, children have no health care, homlessless is at an all time high (no matter what part of the country you are in) and what money we did have went to Iraq. So tell me..is there a money tree that Mr. Bush is going to go grow?

These are just my thoughts but if anyone has a clue how to answer them..please email me..let me know.

Thanks

Dutchess, You have raised some great questions. I certainly hope it is not from the programs you mentioned. The only true cure for poverty and the drug epidemic in this country is education. Let's not forget that Bush cut millions of dollars of Federal money ear marked for Home Land Security here in New Jersey. I grew up in the shadow of the Twin Towers and lost some good friends and because N.J. is a Blue state, he cut the much needed funds that would have been used for emergency responders that were and still are directly affected by 9/11. There is absolutely no excuse for the Federal Gov. to give the same amount of Home Land Security money to Montana as it does N.Y. and or N.J.. Not that we are more important, we are the targets of the terrorists. I suspect that the security forces here in N.J. will be throwing rocks at the bad guys by the time this is all said and done.

[ThAnswr]

What assumption would that be. It is not my fault that the party of J.F.K. has been hijacked by the extreem left with the likes of that wacky Gov. from Vermont. Hey there are nuts in the Republican party such as Pat Roberts and and alike. But none of you have the guts to admit when some of your party members go too far. I don't subscribe to partisan ideals but it is obvious many of you sheep follow your crazy shepards. It is a shame. Bush has made many mistakes, this is a fact. I don't remember him running on the "Walk on Water" campaign. Until you guys can admit that some of the far left have politicized the tragedy of Katrina and caused some racial tensions, than it is plain to see that you are narrow-minded and intolerant of anyone who has a dissenting point of view. I can't help but attack a party, it just so happens to be the Democrats this time, that has done more harm to the harmony of the American people of late than good. If you are a Democrat and are offended, too bad! Get over your elitist self. :earboy2:

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/teufel/devil-smiley-104.gif

[cats7494]

If you are a Democrat and are offended, too bad! Get over your elitist self. :earboy2:

:rolleyes: no comment for rude posts...

Anyway...
I agree dutchess 1968,
I am worried about the source of money to fund the relief effort as well. Programs such as Head Start and Title 1 should not be cut - it becomes a vicious cycle when you cut programs for the people most in need. Those programs are such a necessity. Studies have shown statistically significant positive impacts on children who attend these programs. Here is a great link explaining the study results of Head Start:
http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/

Crossing my fingers that good decisions are made!

[Laugh O. Grams]

Dutchess, You have raised some great questions. I certainly hope it is not from the programs you mentioned. The only true cure for poverty and the drug epidemic in this country is education. Let's not forget that Bush cut millions of dollars of Federal money ear marked for Home Land Security here in New Jersey. I grew up in the shadow of the Twin Towers and lost some good friends and because N.J. is a Blue state, he cut the much needed funds that would have been used for emergency responders that were and still are directly affected by 9/11. There is absolutely no excuse for the Federal Gov. to give the same amount of Home Land Security money to Montana as it does N.Y. and or N.J.. Not that we are more important, we are the targets of the terrorists. I suspect that the security forces here in N.J. will be throwing rocks at the bad guys by the time this is all said and done.
Careful of what you say...there are many conservative posters here will condemn your point about NY/NJ requiring more money than places like Montana as elitist rhetoric who feel like we NYers feel that we are more important than the rest of the US and don't deserve the additional Homeland Security money you speak of. Believe me...I've seen it pathetically posted here many times.

I think that because of the costs of the war in Iraq and the unfortunate situation in MS, AL, and LA, the tax breaks will be put on hold, hopefully, for good, but probably temporarily. If you notice, the Bush Administration has said that they won't raise taxes, but nothing about pushing through the scheduled tax breaks pending. Much like LBJ, President Bush looks to have finally choked on the "Guns & Butter" policy that he has relied on for the past 6 years, is taking a beating in the polls, and is being forced to make some sane public policy choices.

[peachgirl]

If you are a Democrat and are offended, too bad! Get over your elitist self.

With "Independents" like you, who needs Republicans!:rotfl2:

[JoeEpcotRocks]

How about Fox News anchor David Asman's interview with Trent Lott when he asked Lott why a compromise on the filibuster was needed when "we" had the votes for the "nuclear option?"

From the May 25th edition of Fox News Live: "So Senator, if we should have done it and if we had the votes to do it in the Senate----if you guys in the Republican Party did----then they did you need a compromise."

Opps!!! Nice recovery, Davey Boy!!

Sure its an oops. I wish all journalists would stick to reporting the facts and reporting them fairly and getting the whole story (and leave their opinions out). It seems like almost all journalists, editors, and news outlets have a bias. We certainly know who Dan Rather was rooting for.

I don't even like the way journalists report on simple things, such a local chess tournament. They botch facts and then try to come up with some odd (and usually dumb) twist to get readers intererst. UGGH!