Did Bush and the Federal Govt Fail New Orleans

[Spartan]

The hypocrisy of those who say they support Republicans is because Republicans represent smaller less intrusive government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The catch here is that Bush is a Republican, but not a true "conservative." Bush is not as representative of republican values as we thought he was, and that is why many conservative republicans no longer have a high opinion of him. I sure dont. He is a social conservative, but not a fiscal one. He has done some things that are ok with regards to social issues, but there are many things- particularly regarding his fiscal spending policy and the budgets that he keeps signing- that we disapprove of. But you can't blame him entrely for that- Congress makes the budget, and still has alot of democrats that are filling up the pork barrels too. Actually, what ticks me off the most is that he refuses to veto anything. I don't get that at all. Clinton vetoed bills every day it seemed. Oh well.

[RiversideGator]

BTW, you got a 24 hour suspension for calling people senseless names. This isn't the first time it happened. You can debate all you want as long as you follow the rules.

But, my suspension reads as follows:

Accusing forumers of hate and lying

I believe in the free and vigorous exchange of ideas. Obviously this is a private website and you can do what you wish. Nevertheless, I will certainly not call anyone names.

On this hurricane situation, I think part of the difference of opinions may lie in our respective views on the proper role of government in people's lives and in our views on federalism. I believe that the local officials should be responsible for local people before an emergency. The feds should only come in when the locals are overwhelmed, I think. And the feds did come in and in force in a reasonable amount of time given the logistical issues I previously listed. I also think this is failing as a political issue for the Dems.

[RiversideGator]

The catch here is that Bush is a Republican, but not a true "conservative." Bush is not as representative of republican values as we thought he was, and that is why many conservative republicans no longer have a high opinion of him. I sure dont. He is a social conservative, but not a fiscal one. He has done some things that are ok with regards to social issues, but there are many things- particularly regarding his fiscal spending policy and the budgets that he keeps signing- that we disapprove of. But you can't blame him entrely for that- Congress makes the budget, and still has alot of democrats that are filling up the pork barrels too. Actually, what ticks me off the most is that he refuses to veto anything. I don't get that at all. Clinton vetoed bills every day it seemed. Oh well.

Spartan: I agree completely. I have found Bush to be a great disappointment on many issues. He spends too much for one (he is kind of a big government conservative). He has never vetoed a spending bill, as you stated, as an example. He also supports many of the same entitlements as Ted Kennedy and supports the Mexicanization of our country. So, no one can accuse me of being a pro-Bush robot. I dont agree with him on many issues. I just dont see this hurricane issue as a real problem. I think the feds did about all that can be expected under the circumstances. I am very sorry people died, but this happens in all disasters. May God have mercy on their souls.

[Spartan]

Riverside- My advise is to ALWAYS show respect to everyone. "Accusing forumers of___" implies a personal attack on someone.

People who get suspended here deserve it whether they realize it or not. We have very insightful and respectful debates here, and people who disrupt that process are punished appropriately. It really is that simple. The staff goes out of its way to maintain that respect among forumers, and though it may seem to be extreme to you, it has worked so far, and it will continue to do so.

[Spartan]

Spartan:  I agree completely.  I have found Bush to be a great disappointment on many issues.  He spends too much for one (he is kind of a big government conservative).  He has never vetoed a spending bill, as you stated, as an example.  He also supports many of the same entitlements as Ted Kennedy and supports the Mexicanization of our country.  So, no one can accuse me of being a pro-Bush robot.  I dont agree with him on many issues.  I just dont see this hurricane issue as a real problem.  I think the feds did about all that can be expected under the circumstances.  I am very sorry people died, but this happens in all disasters.  May God have mercy on their souls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that Bush did slip on the Katrina response. I do think that those accusing him of "being on vacation" as being a bad thing are looking for more stuff to bash him with. In this day and age he is just as connected in Texas as he is in DC. He can easily do his job from there. But like I said, I agree that his response was too slow.

I also think that Mayor Nagin and the Lousiana DHS (separate from the Federal one) slipped up big time, and that some of the blame lies with them as well as the president. That mayor did nothing productive as a leader except yell and scream, and carry on using language unbefitting of a true leader. But that is not the topic at hand now, is it?

[RiversideGator]

Well I ask this again since the question has been ignored? Is 10 dead acceptable, 100 dead, 500? You tell me since statements such as this would seem to indicate that if the number is less than thousands, then somehow Bush is exonerated of all charges that he did not act fast enough?

I think that the less confirmed deaths there are in NO, the more it seems likely that the federal response was not incompetent but was instead as effective as can be expected. Also, the fact that people died waiting to be rescued does not prove that the feds were incompetent. If there were 100,000 people waiting to be rescued, it takes time to do this and it is to be expected that the weakest (i.e. those in hospital) would die first. The vast majority were rescued however. I think demanding perfection is totally unrealistic and if Bush had been on the scene early on like cornpone LBJ, he would have simply been a distraction, not a help. As for Brown, he obviously took one for the team to provide political cover for Bush (in order to defuse the baseless Democrat accusations).

[Viper]

(my health insurance rose 24% last year alone!). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We can blame him, opinated blame mind you, for many things but this is certainly not one of them.

Health Insurance companies premiums have increased by 11.2% per year for the past several years now which is more than 400% above inflation.

Profit has also increased by 400%.

[monsoon]

On this hurricane situation, I think part of the difference of opinions may lie in our respective views on the proper role of government in people's lives and in our views on federalism.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I take my expected role of the Federal government's responsibilities from this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I am sure you notice this as the preamble to the Constitution. It doesn't say anything about the states being responsible to "promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense" and only when they fail, its then a Federal problem. In fact, it is the Federal government's job to make sure the states uphold the constitution.

Bush was sworn (by standing in front of the Nation with his hand on the Bible no less) to uphold the Constitution. He failed to do so by not taking any action except to stay on vacation when the nation was faced with one of the biggest storms of the last 100 years. It doesn't matter if the locals did their job or not. It is his job to uphold the Constitution, or really there isn't a need for a United States. We can let the states revert back to full control and simply have them sign some treaties like they have done in the EU.

[RiversideGator]

monsoon: Police power (i.e. to take care of local citizens and to ensure their safety) is traditionally reserved to the states under our federal system. The US Constitution does not allow for such a broad use of federal power as some might think.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_powers

Federal troops are also generally prohibitted from engaging in policing in the US under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. Presidents usually defer to the state Governors to call for the federalization of the National Guard units (which are largely controlled by the States despite the name). In this case, Gov Blanco of LA waited over 24 hours to respond in the affirmative to Bush's offer to send in the military.

See http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murd...00509130839.asp

Also, as for the response post-hurricane, more interesting facts have come to light. Specifically, the State of Louisiana refused to allow the Red Cross to enter NO immediately after the hurricane hit (even though the Red Cross had relief supplies ready outside the city) in a misguided attempt to force people to evacuate by depriving them of food and water.

See http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html

How many people died because of this decision? And, when will we stop scapegoating Bush here?

[cinco]

for all of you who defend bush... http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/13/katrina.impact/index.html

seems he's trying something new...like acknowledging his mistakes. while i do get a laugh @ political transparencies (like admitting you F'ed up a day after polls show your lowest approval ratings), i think this is certainly a step in the right direction.

did he admit his faults b/c of political pressure? do you think he really feels he screwed up? WHO, has EGG in their face?

[cinco]

How many people died because of this decision?  And, when will we stop scapegoating Bush here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wow, this has gotten interesting... is bush now scapegoatin' bush?

[rusthebuss]

Look my take on this is that too much federal govt. involvement = less freedom. Lets be honest the states need to be self suficient and taking care of themselves. Just like the Patriot Act(Big Govt) it takes away are rights away and says that the feds can come storming in your house or business without court order and I just don't like that. I agree that the President can work from the sky and on his supposed vacation and such. Honestly what could have Bush done different if he was in Washington.....nothing. Also you know how many people it takes to move hundred of thousands and to find them and go house to house a long time. You have to expect some dead. My personal opinion is that people are using this as a excuse to talk the president even more down because of other issues. I don't completely support all of his decisions either. Especially how he is handling the Mexico border but that is another subject. When I voted last election I choose the lesser of 2 evils.

[monsoon]

........ When I voted last election I choose the lesser of 2 evils.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So even his supporters refer to him as an evil. Well... that beats anything that I couild ever say about our President, the Head of the United States, the Commander in Chief and his motivations to lead us through a crisis.

[rusthebuss]

So even his supporters refer to him as an evil.

[monsoon]

Nice way to twist my words. That was not what I meant and you know that. I was making a point about how I choose the canidates. They are all politicians and you can't really trust any of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are correct, I did twist your words and I apoligise. BTW, I am no fan of Kerry either. You can search out my comments here on him if you are interested. Bush is in office because Kerry was such a poor choice. As long as this keeps being presented as a Democratic vs Republican or liberal vs conservative battle, then we have all lost and we end up with crappy candidates like Bush and Kerry to choose from.

However that does not change my opinion that Bush should be held responsible for his failures as President. Bush's objective in office is to hold the power for his cadre so they can continue to profiteer at the taxpayer's expense. And it does not matter what they have to do to do it. He only became interested in NO when the result of his inaction put that political power in danger. We don't need leaders like this.

[ironchapman]

You are correct, I did twist your words and I apoligise.  BTW, I am no fan of Kerry either.  You can search out my comments here on him if you are interested.  Bush is in office because Kerry was such a poor choice.  As long as this keeps being presented as a Democratic vs Republican or liberal vs conservative battle, then we have all lost and we end up with crappy candidates like Bush and Kerry to choose from.

I agree 100%

However that does not change my opinion that Bush should be held responsible for his failures as President.  Bush's objective in office is to hold the power for his cadre so they can continue to profiteer at the taxpayer's expense.  And it does not matter what they have to do to do it.  He only became interested in NO when the result of his inaction put that political power in danger.    We don't need leaders like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard somewhere that Bush admitted responsibilty somewhere...for what exactly I don't know, but I remember hearing on the radio something about him admitting responsibility for something.

[rusthebuss]

Well I do agree there is alot of things he does that I don't like so we at least agree on something. And Kerry would have been a 100 times worse than Bush IMO. I would not be able to purchase any of my guns and such.

[monsoon]

  And Kerry would have been a 100 times worse than Bush IMO. I would not be able to purchase any of my guns and such.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No President of the USA for the foreseeable future is going to do anything to affect gun ownership in this country and your ability to purchase an arsenal from the local Walmart. It would be political suicide. It is congress that makes these laws not the President.

Instead of worrying about that, I would be more concerned about what they are doing to the national debt, the environment, getting people off welfare, alternative energy, foreign policy, illegal immigrants, the xfer of our manufacturing base and knowledge to China, etc. Things that really matter to the well being of the people of this country.

[RiverwoodCLT]

President Bush has done the right by addressing the Fed. Govt. response.

My question is where is all the $200 Billion going to come from he is going to rebuild the Gulf coast?

Many will not go back, so do they get money to restart where they are?

washingtonpost.com

Some of the Uprooted Won't Go Home Again

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1502010_pf.html

Hats off to the US Coast Guard. They rescured over 6000 people after Katrina.

[Snowguy716]

President Bush has done the right by addressing the Fed. Govt. response.

My question is where is all the $200 Billion going to come from he is going to rebuild the Gulf coast?

Many will not go back, so do they get money to restart where they are?

washingtonpost.com

Some of the Uprooted Won't Go Home Again

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1502010_pf.html

Hats off to the US Coast Guard. They rescured over 6000 people after Katrina.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The truth is, most of that money will be directed from the poor in other areas of the country to the poor in New Orleans. Bush has already said taxes will not be raised and that congress will have to reduce spending. So basically, he's going to screw the country over and then try and put a spin on it so he can blame the congress for it while he walks away with half the country going "See, it was congress that made this huge deficit. George Bush is my favorite. Neener neener neener." This man never ceases to amaze me.

It won't matter. Our federal deficit will be so large by hte time Bush leaves that we'll be paying for it for decades to come. I cringe at the thought of fiscal conservatives supporting a president like this and then shouting at Bill Clinton, when he was running a balanced budget. (Don't credit that to the republicans, because it's even more evident now that the republicans have caused and sustained this massive budget deficit. You can't just keep running a country and keep it secure by spending money that you don't bring in.)

[CtownMikey]

THANK YOU BILL CLINTON, I HOPE TO GOD THAT HILARY IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT!

"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq,

Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts," he said.

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

Clinton added: "We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense."

[RiversideGator]

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

I suspect this is not true. It is actually quite common for nations to borrow money during war. I will do some research as to whether or not the US has done so in the past.

[monsoon]

The issue isn't the unnecessary war in Iraq, but the huge deficit spending that Bush and the Republicans continue to inflict on this country and its future generations. We will never see a budget surplus again because a significant portion of the yearly budget will be on the interest payments for all of this borrowing. And yes the principle note holders are Communist China, S. Korea, Japan, The Saudis (don't we love that), and the UK.

I've heard many people in this thread blast what they call "liberals" for supporting big government (i.e. spending) and government programs. Yet there is silence from this crowd when Bush does it. Under the Bush administration, spending is higher and his government is larger than any president in office since LBJ. And there are far more people on welfare now than when Clinton was in office. Clinton actually reduced welfare roles. I sometimes think this crowd would claim Bush was creating construction jobs if he had the white house blown up.

The huge deficit spending is a disgrace to the citizens of the United States and another sign this President does not care about the common person. The Republicans have caused this mess and have broken their promise to shrink government.

[CtownMikey]

Any word on Hilary Clinton.. if she is going to run she's got my vote. And is there a more appropriate thread for me to talk about this in? I couldn't find one

[monsoon]

Any word on Hilary Clinton.. if she is going to run   she's got my vote.  And is there a more appropriate thread for me to talk about this in? I couldn't find one

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, start another thread if you need to.