NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted this story on another thread, but it got little attention, so I'm hoping to get a bit more of an audience here.

From Brian Williams of NBC News (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9314188/#050916):
I am duty-bound to report the talk of the New Orleans warehouse district last night: there was rejoicing (well, there would have been without the curfew, but the few people I saw on the streets were excited) when the power came back on for blocks on end. Kevin Tibbles was positively jubilant on the live update edition of Nightly News that we fed to the West Coast. The mini-mart, long ago cleaned out by looters, was nonetheless bathed in light, including the empty, roped-off gas pumps. The motorcade route through the district was partially lit no more than 30 minutes before POTUS drove through. And yet last night, no more than an hour after the President departed, the lights went out. The entire area was plunged into total darkness again, to audible groans. It's enough to make some of the folks here who witnessed it... jump to certain conclusions.
Now, it has been reported on other threads that this is nothing new. A German newspaper reported on another photo-op where bulldozers appeared in Mississippi just in time for the press to capture them with Bush, and that the second he disappeared, so did the dozers. Another magazine reported about a food and water distribution center that seemed to be going up behind Bush in New Orleans during his first visit to the area--the second the cameras left, so did the food and the workers.

Everyone here knows I hold no love for Bush, and I never have, but for the longest time that's been based on his incompetence. But ever since this hurricane hit, that feeling's been transformed into something deeper. These actions have convinced me that there's something far more cynical at play here.

I don't have any answers. I don't know how it's going to end. But something's got to give, and soon, or this grand experiment will fall and crumble, and we will have been witness to it, and perhaps even partakers in it.

Well, I'll *BUMP* ya Nazz, you post most excellently.
*bows*

Well, would anyone expect different? Bush is a politician, and politicians (all of them) care first and foremost about political gain. I have no doubt that any other politician or president would be trying to get the same photo-ops because they translate in to votes.

It seems that politicians only do things to help and not to gain votes after they leave office; look at Carter or Clinton. They're doing more good than they ever could while in office.

Bush has spent more money on poverty than any other president in history .
His record on appointing minoritys to high positions in government is as good or better than any other president in history .

As far as entitlement spending on poverty programs is concerned, it isn't even close. In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2% of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush's budget kicked 2% more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion dollars. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history. What say you, Jesse and Howard

http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle


like you said . Actions speak louder than words .

yet he refuses to address outsourcing which is causing more and more people to lose their jobs. Making more poor.

Well, would anyone expect different? Bush is a politician, and politicians (all of them) care first and foremost about political gain. I have no doubt that any other politician or president would be trying to get the same photo-ops because they translate in to votes.

It seems that politicians only do things to help and not to gain votes after they leave office; look at Carter or Clinton. They're doing more good than they ever could while in office.
Hey, you can say lots of stuff about Clinton, but when it came to disaster relief, he was all over it. Here's the biggest difference between the way Clinton handled FEMA and the way Bush did it. When Clinton appointed a buddy to run the show, it was a buddy who had thirty years of experience in the field and knew what the fuck he was doing.

Let me clarify one more point about this entire Bush photo-op escapade. My beef with him on this isn't that he got the lights working or got the bulldozers in or got the food distribution center going strictly for the photo op--that would have been shitty, but as long as the work continued, it would have served a purpose and done some good. It's the way that all the good shit disappears the second Bush does that pisses me off, along with the way that the news media largely lets it go unreported. The fact that I had to get two of those stories from a German newspaper is retarded. The fact that the only place I've seen Brian Williams's story is on a blog is ridiculous.

Bush has spent more money on poverty than any other president in history .
His record on appointing minoritys to high positions in government is as good or better than any other president in history .



http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle


like you said . Actions speak louder than words .I say Bill O'Reilly is so full of shit his eyes are brown.

I say Bill O'Reilly is so full of shit his eyes are brown.

Not to mention his nose.

No action, and all photo-ops? Obviously you are so incredibly biased you can't possibly look at what has been set for reconstruction and the fact that things have been starting to be cleaned up. This for the most part will be a private sector undertaking with the public sector backing them up with assistance in the form of monetary grants and such. To say the president is taking no or little action is nonsense.

yet he refuses to address outsourcing which is causing more and more people to lose their jobs. Making more poor.
The US has more jobs coming in from other countries than are being outsourced.

yet he refuses to address outsourcing which is causing more and more people to lose their jobs. Making more poor.

and you think that businesses should lose control over such decisions?

hmmm

The US has more jobs coming in from other countries than are being outsourced.

they're being outsourced because US labor is VERY EXPENSIVE.

I say Bill O'Reilly is so full of shit his eyes are brown.

like your one-line hate-filled attacks at Bush, you fail to back this up with anything other than angst.

Bush is incompetent... how? Tell me. I'll refute each claim.

I say Bill O'Reilly is so full of shit his eyes are brown.
He could be the anti christ for all I care as long as his facts are correct .
So far no one has disputed that he is correct as far as stating Bush has spent more than any other president etc.
I too think that O'rielly and his ilk of talking head blowhards are mostly scum who never had a real job . Both right and left . They can all kiss my ass . But sometimes you have to dig in a shit pile for a morsel of truth .

He could be the anti christ for all I care as long as his facts are correct .
So far no one has disputed that he is correct as far as stating Bush has spent more than any other president etc.
I too think that O'rielly and his ilk of talking head blowhards are mostly scum who never had a real job . Both right and left . They can all kiss my ass . But sometimes you have to dig in a shit pile for a morsel of truth .

you won't get structured arguments from many in the Left... they'll simply name-call.

they're being outsourced because US labor is VERY EXPENSIVE.

. . .Which is a pretty bloodless way of saying we are well-paid. The contrapositive of that, however, is that our money is very well-earned: we work on average more than any other industrialized nation on earth, and our workers are more productive than those of any other nation on earth.

Of course, not that that matters if a Thai can do 15% of your work at 10% of your price and can easily be replaced if he dies on the job.

Quite a ringing endorsement of capitalism, for certain.

. . .Which is a pretty bloodless way of saying we are well-paid. The contrapositive of that, however, is that our money is very well-earned: we work on average more than any other industrialized nation on earth, and our workers are more productive than those of any other nation on earth.

Of course, not that that matters if a Thai can do 15% of your work at 10% of your price and can easily be replaced if he dies on the job.

Quite a ringing endorsement of capitalism, for certain.

yah

but preserving proprietary rights is far better than not having any.

like your one-line hate-filled attacks at Bush, you fail to back this up with anything other than angst.

Bush is incompetent... how? Tell me. I'll refute each claim.
Dude--if you can't look at the last five years and see that Bush is incompetent, then you're the blindest of the blind. And I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue it point by point with you on a message board. You think Bush is so goddamn great? You take the time to point out how wonderfully he's handled every cirisis he's faced, including those he's caused himself, and then watch us take it apart step by step.

Bush has spent more money on poverty than any other president in history .
His record on appointing minoritys to high positions in government is as good or better than any other president in history .



http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle


like you said . Actions speak louder than words .
Vermont is bracing for a federal sucker punch as the Bush administration prepares to fight for a 2006 budget that could eviscerate programs aimed at lifting people out of poverty, just as low-income housing advocates try to make sense of this year’s round of low-income rent subsidy reductions.
Vermont is bracing for a federal sucker punch as the Bush administration prepares to fight for a 2006 budget that could eviscerate programs aimed at lifting people out of poverty, just as low-income housing advocates try to make sense of this year’s round of low-income rent subsidy reductions.

http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/0105/BushBudget.shtml

"In some places," Roza said, "taxpayer money intended to help overcome the effects of poverty is actually diverted to schools in the wealthiest neighborhoods."

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=12551

The poorest 20 percent of workers, who earn on average $16,600 annually, will get a tax break of $250 this year, which is less than 2 percent of their income. That amounts to about 68 cents a day.

By comparison, the richest 1 percent, with average incomes topping $1.1 million, will receive $78,460 in tax cuts this year. That is nearly 7 percent of their income.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0409/26/a01-284666.htm




But wait... you said, Bill O'Reilly said Bush was doing well for people in poverty? Well... I stand corrected.

No I said " BUSH is spending more on poverty than any other American President " WTF does that have to do with Bill O'Reilly said Bush was doing well for people in poverty? Well... I stand corrected.
Today 11:11 PM
?

Well you did correct yourself...there is that .

yah

but preserving proprietary rights is far better than not having any.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the concept of a false dichotomy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

There are middle grounds between feudalism and stark raving anarchy, you know.

yet he refuses to address outsourcing which is causing more and more people to lose their jobs. Making more poor.

No, absolutely wrong. Outsourcing is good for the economy. It gets rid of overpaid, underproductive jobs in the US, lowering prices for consumers and thereby increasing demand, which leads to more jobs in the US to manage increased demand.

Secondly, it improves the economic conditions in countries to which we outsource, which means they buy more and invest more in US products which in turn leads to more US jobs.

It greatly increases productivity, which translates in to lower prices and gains in living standards. It's ridiculous to force companies to pay someone $70,000 a year to do something that a person in India could do as well or better for $20,000.

. . .Which is a pretty bloodless way of saying we are well-paid. The contrapositive of that, however, is that our money is very well-earned: we work on average more than any other industrialized nation on earth, and our workers are more productive than those of any other nation on earth.

Of course, not that that matters if a Thai can do 15% of your work at 10% of your price and can easily be replaced if he dies on the job..

The positions that can be done productively in the US are the ones that aren't being outsource. What are being outsourced are the low productivity, high cost jobs. This means lower prices and more investment in the United States.

A person from Thailand can do it cheaper and better than a person in the US. Even though you're only paying them 10% as much, in PPP that is equal to $60,000 or $70,000 in the United States. So, if you can get someone who is equally or more talented, hard working, and costs 90% less (which is still extremely good pay if converted to US standards), why wouldn't you do it?

and you think that businesses should lose control over such decisions?

hmmm

Yes Yes I do. They don't care about anything but the O mighty dollar, so someone needs to MAKE them care. By taxing the hell out of those who outsource. Or refusing to let them sell on US shores.

No, absolutely wrong. Outsourcing is good for the economy. It gets rid of overpaid, underproductive jobs in the US, lowering prices for consumers and thereby increasing demand, which leads to more jobs in the US to manage increased demand.

Secondly, it improves the economic conditions in countries to which we outsource, which means they buy more and invest more in US products which in turn leads to more US jobs.

It greatly increases productivity, which translates in to lower prices and gains in living standards. It's ridiculous to force companies to pay someone $70,000 a year to do something that a person in India could do as well or better for $20,000.

Maybe in the short term but what about the long run, They aren't investing in US products, WHAT US products, nothing's made in the US anymore. It's all made in Asia! China's buying all of our Bonds, so in around 20 years we'll be owned by them. Good trade. I can look around the place I'm typing and find only a handful of Products made in the US.

P.S. The current American Flags most often have small labels saying: 'made in China' How ironic.

Well, would anyone expect different? Bush is a politician, and politicians (all of them) care first and foremost about political gain. I have no doubt that any other politician or president would be trying to get the same photo-ops because they translate in to votes.

It seems that politicians only do things to help and not to gain votes after they leave office; look at Carter or Clinton. They're doing more good than they ever could while in office.

Absolutely... especially after what they (didn't) do for New Orleans during their administrations... i.e. tell the enviornmentalists where to get off and let the Corps build the Levies anyway.

Refocus on who's really to blame: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445029

(edit) As far as the Federal $$$ goes:



There's an old adage that no one in Washington can tell the difference between $1 million and $1 billion. Seldom has that Beltway learning disability been more vividly demonstrated than in the weeks since Katrina.

When President Bush announced last Thursday that the feds would take a lead role in the reconstruction of New Orleans, he in effect established a new $200 billion federal line of credit. To put that $200 billion in perspective, we could give every one of the 500,000 families displaced by Katrina a check for $400,000, and they could each build a beach front home virtually anywhere in America.
This flood of money comes on the heels of a massive domestic spending build-up in progress well before Katrina traveled its ruinous path. Federal spending, not counting the war in Iraq, was growing by 7% this year, which came atop the 30% hike over Mr. Bush's first term. Republicans were already being ridiculed as the Grand Old Spending Party by taxpayer groups. Their check-writing binge in response to the hurricane only confirmed, as conservative leader Paul Weyrich put it, that "the GOP, once the party of small government, has lost its bearings and the Republican establishment doesn't seem to get the message that the grass roots of the party is enraged."

Congressman Todd Aiken of Missouri complains that Congress was forced to vote on the $62 billion first installment of funds "even though we knew a lot of the money may go to waste." Mr. Aiken and several dozen other House conservatives proposed an amendment to the $62 billion hurricane relief bill that would offset at least some of the emergency spending by cutting other government programs a meager 2.5 cents out of every dollar that federal agencies spend.

Was the amendment defeated? No. The Republican leadership would not even allow it to come to a vote, on the grounds that there was no waste which could be easily identified and cut.

Peh. Republocrats at it again. :headbang: