NationStates Jolt Archive

Not to you and me, of course. But if it is strong and very damaging, then it'll be Washington's gift from the political gods. Just think about it: gross paranoia about disasters leads to a state of heightened prepardness, Texas already being in a state of emergency, and endless turfwars to be fought so that politicians can avoid messy issues, like Supreme Court Justices or GWOT. But if it fizzles, well, there will be an outcry over why the government scared Texans.
So what'd you guys think?

I think that if the federal government manages to handle Rita well, it will distract people from how poor the government response was in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. If it fizzles, then they will be able to say that they are taking no chances with the lives of Americans. So it works for them either way.

If the government screws up again, though, then they're going to get crucified. So it's a double edged sword.

Either way, I don't think it will serve as a long term distraction.

Now is not the time. I'll be glad to continue this much after Rita hits, but not right now.

Now is not the time. I'll be glad to continue this much after Rita hits, but not right now.
I don't see a danger in talking about this. Rita will kill very few people because Texas is a lot different than the rest of the Gulf Coast. Mostly, it won't flood that much because Texas, unlike Louisianna, is not waterlogged. At worst, a few refineries will be shut down for a while.

Well I wouldn't call it a "blessing"...

But maybe it'll make the Government look good when they now learn from their mistakes.
That being said, it's probably going to be another $100b damage to be paid for, and I heard that the emergency walls, pumps etc that are being set up don't protect the very poor suburb St Bernard (?).
Does anyone have any info on that?

At worst, a few refineries will be shut down for a while.
Isn't Galveston pretty much on an island? I saw a computer simulation in the news yesterday about what would happen if it was hit by a Cat3 storm. It was completely underwater...

Isn't Galveston pretty much on an island? I saw a computer simulation in the news yesterday about what would happen if it was hit by a Cat3 storm. It was completely underwater...
The storm surge would sink it, but the waters would recede, unlike in southern Louisianna.

There's always the chance that the further expense to pay for this cleanup and rebuilding would cause the Congress to rethink those ruinous tax cuts of the last five years. I wouldn't bet on it, but it might. And if it doesn't, then next year when the deficit is a trillion dollars, maybe it'll help the Democrats pick up 90 seats in the House and 20 in the Senate.

There's always the chance that the further expense to pay for this cleanup and rebuilding would cause the Congress to rethink those ruinous tax cuts of the last five years. I wouldn't bet on it, but it might. And if it doesn't, then next year when the deficit is a trillion dollars, maybe it'll help the Democrats pick up 90 seats in the House and 20 in the Senate.


Didn't the shrub already mention they were looking at cuts in the social programs?

There's always the chance that the further expense to pay for this cleanup and rebuilding would cause the Congress to rethink those ruinous tax cuts of the last five years. I wouldn't bet on it, but it might. And if it doesn't, then next year when the deficit is a trillion dollars, maybe it'll help the Democrats pick up 90 seats in the House and 20 in the Senate.
Wouldn't count on it. There are too many variables involved. I personally believe that there won't be a Democrat party in a few years to pick up the seats, but rather, it will be a collection of small parties. But that's just me.

There's always the chance that the further expense to pay for this cleanup and rebuilding would cause the Congress to rethink those ruinous tax cuts of the last five years. I wouldn't bet on it, but it might. And if it doesn't, then next year when the deficit is a trillion dollars, maybe it'll help the Democrats pick up 90 seats in the House and 20 in the Senate.

We could just cut that $234 billion pile of shit highway bill and cut down on that poorly planned Medicare benefit (we'll be paying more in taxes for that than we save in costs in a few years). Iraq spending needs to be eliminated as well. From that, we'd have enough to eliminate a big chunk of the deficit and keep taxes normal, and maybe take on Social Security's funding crisis. The Democrats would pick up plenty of votes if they ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism and restraint.

Not to you and me, of course. But if it is strong and very damaging, then it'll be Washington's gift from the political gods. Just think about it: gross paranoia about disasters leads to a state of heightened prepardness, Texas already being in a state of emergency, and endless turfwars to be fought so that politicians can avoid messy issues, like Supreme Court Justices or GWOT. But if it fizzles, well, there will be an outcry over why the government scared Texans.
So what'd you guys think?
I can only hope that this year's hurricane season will wake our politicians up as to the state of our current budget. They've been running it more or less into the ground for years now [and not just under Bush even though he's been the worst], and it's catching up to us fast. A lot of people seem to think budget deficits are no big deal, but when shit like this happens, we're caught with our pants down and a big old target painted on our ass.

Perhaps if we stopped spending money on things like the Federal Wool and Mohair program and started doing wiser things with it we may actually be able to handle disasters like this sometime soon.

I don't see a danger in talking about this. Rita will kill very few people because Texas is a lot different than the rest of the Gulf Coast. Mostly, it won't flood that much because Texas, unlike Louisianna, is not waterlogged. At worst, a few refineries will be shut down for a while.

yeah, i'm sure everyone will be fine. category 4 or 5 huricanes are no biggie.

I can only hope that this year's hurricane season will wake our politicians up as to the state of our current budget. They've been running it more or less into the ground for years now [and not just under Bush even though he's been the worst], and it's catching up to us fast. A lot of people seem to think budget deficits are no big deal, but when shit like this happens, we're caught with our pants down and a big old target painted on our ass.

Perhaps if we stopped spending money on things like the Federal Wool and Mohair program and started doing wiser things with it we may actually be able to handle disasters like this sometime soon.
I agree. But short of something 10 times the scope of the conservative revolution of 1980, that ain't happening.

Perhaps if we stopped spending money on things like the Federal Wool and Mohair program and started doing wiser things with it we may actually be able to handle disasters like this sometime soon.

Or the highway bill with $34 billion in rider pork amendments ($200 million dollar bridge in Alaska?).

Canada is sending hundreds of millions of dollars to Katrina releif. Rita will just be another way to suck money. Oil prices will rise even more causing more distractions here (in Canada), the southern USA and Iraq.

yeah, i'm sure everyone will be fine. category 4 or 5 huricanes are no biggie.
It lweakened since last night. It has a while to go before landfall.

We could just cut that $234 billion pile of shit highway bill and cut down on that poorly planned Medicare benefit (we'll be paying more in taxes for that than we save in costs in a few years). Iraq spending needs to be eliminated as well. From that, we'd have enough to eliminate a big chunk of the deficit and keep taxes normal, and maybe take on Social Security's funding crisis. The Democrats would pick up plenty of votes if they ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism and restraint.
Well, the second part you can count on, no matter what happens with the tax cuts--they're going to run on the Clinton balanced budgets like you wouldn't believe, and no one outside the policy wonks is going to care whether Clinton's balanced budget was due to sound fiscal policy or a tech bubble or a little of both--they're going to remember "balanced budget" versus "trillion dollar deficit." I'd run ads 24-7 with just that message from now until election day.

And we could cut a lot of the pork from that transportation bill and delay the medicare giveaway to big pharma--but do you honestly think it will happen? Come on. This is the Republican Congress we're talking about here.

I agree. But short of something 10 times the scope of the conservative revolution of 1980, that ain't happening.
I would hope it would be ten times the effectiveness as opposed ot ten times the scope. Conservatives seemed to be on a vaguely legitimate track until the late 80s with that son of a bitch George Bush. Given that he didn't get reelected, I was actually pretty surprised when GW "won" the 2000 election.

What would need to be done, from my estimation, is the Republicans woul dhave to return to the 80's era conservative doctrine, as opposed to this Neoconservative outgrowth we've been seeing for the last few years. Hopefully, the expenses incurred by these disasters will put the Iraq budget situation into perspective, if nothing else.

And we could cut a lot of the pork from that transportation bill and delay the medicare giveaway to big pharma--but do you honestly think it will happen? Come on. This is the Republican Congress we're talking about here.
The Republicans, while at fault this time, are merely a victim of success. The Democrats were just like this eleven years ago, on the eve of the Republican Revolution. In both instances, they got way too big, expected too much, lost their ideaology, and focused instead on rewarding friends.

I would hope it would be ten times the effectiveness as opposed ot ten times the scope. Conservatives seemed to be on a vaguely legitimate track until the late 80s with that son of a bitch George Bush. Given that he didn't get reelected, I was actually pretty surprised when GW "won" the 2000 election.

What would need to be done, from my estimation, is the Republicans woul dhave to return to the 80's era conservative doctrine, as opposed to this Neoconservative outgrowth we've been seeing for the last few years. Hopefully, the expenses incurred by these disasters will put the Iraq budget situation into perspective, if nothing else.
I pretty much agree. Too bad it won't happen.

Not to you and me, of course. But if it is strong and very damaging, then it'll be Washington's gift from the political gods. Just think about it: gross paranoia about disasters leads to a state of heightened prepardness, Texas already being in a state of emergency, and endless turfwars to be fought so that politicians can avoid messy issues, like Supreme Court Justices or GWOT. But if it fizzles, well, there will be an outcry over why the government scared Texans.
So what'd you guys think?
People dying. People ending up homeless and in despair. Economic ruin.

These are NOT blessings.

Well, I'm just waiting for the Fed to start monetising the deficit....

Bring one the Seignorage!!!

Regardless of whether we think it's right to be in Iraq or not, our troops are there. Pulling them would cause the collapse of the Middle East and so now we have no choice but to support them.

I prefer the idea of cutting all the pork projects out of the various budgets. Those pork projects are part of the reason the budget is so difficult to balance - no one is willing to sacrifice their pork projects because it's essentially become federally subsidized campaigning.

The Republicans, while at fault this time, are merely a victim of success. The Democrats were just like this eleven years ago, on the eve of the Republican Revolution. In both instances, they got way too big, expected too much, lost their ideaology, and focused instead on rewarding friends.
What I think did it, honestly, was the fact that they suddenly had control of both Congress and the White House. There was no balancing anymore. Under Clinton, the exective got some of what it wanted and the Congress got some of what it wanted and there was a semblance of balance. Not so anymore.

Regardless of whether we think it's right to be in Iraq or not, our troops are there. Pulling them would cause the collapse of the Middle East and so now we have no choice but to support them.

In my mind, the troops are not an issue. If this were a group of nuclear bombers heading toward Texas, that'd be different. It isn't. It's just a hurricane. There are plenty of troops to help that out, especially since Rita will probably be less hurtful than Katrina. At least coastal Texas isn't land below sea level that's surrounded by water.

What I think did it, honestly, was the fact that they suddenly had control of both Congress and the White House. There was no balancing anymore. Under Clinton, the exective got some of what it wanted and the Congress got some of what it wanted and there was a semblance of balance. Not so anymore.
Very true. We need Lyndon Johnson back. He can keep his ideaology at home, as far as I'm concerned, but he truely was master of the Senate.

My guess is that no matter what happens, the far left liberal wing of the democratic party will find some reason to blame Bush for it. Robert Kennedy, Jr. has already said, in effect, that Katrina was the result of Bush's failure to sign the Kyoto treaty. The far left will run with that if they have to. It doesn't matter to them, it is ALL Bush's fault.

Very true. We need Lyndon Johnson back. He can keep his ideaology at home, as far as I'm concerned, but he truely was master of the Senate.
I'd be quite happy with Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, personally. I still wouldn't vote for any of the pondscum from the Republican side who are eyeing the presidency in 2008, but given a choice, I'll take Congress over the Presidency any day.

My guess is that no matter what happens, the far left liberal wing of the democratic party will find some reason to blame Bush for it. Robert Kennedy, Jr. has already said, in effect, that Katrina was the result of Bush's failure to sign the Kyoto treaty. The far left will run with that if they have to. It doesn't matter to them, it is ALL Bush's fault.
Who's he, other than RFK's son?

My guess is that no matter what happens, the far left liberal wing of the democratic party will find some reason to blame Bush for it. Robert Kennedy, Jr. has already said, in effect, that Katrina was the result of Bush's failure to sign the Kyoto treaty. The far left will run with that if they have to. It doesn't matter to them, it is ALL Bush's fault.
As opposed to the right-wing of the Republican party who will blame liberals for everything and anything, even though there's not a single liberal in a real position of power nationally? Give me a break.

It doesnt matter. No matter what happens his ratings wont move around that much. Do you know how high his ratings are now? 40%, yeah its still that high, apparently staying on vacation while a state of emergency is going on is acceptable as long as Bush maintains a strong southern accent. But worry not! Soon Bush will be in Nawlens servin' hot gritz to a black family and his ratings will rise again. After all its the present that matters not the past. If this hurricane goes badly his aproval MIGHT drop 3 or 4% if it goes well it will rise to 42% If the worst happens thats still 36-37% of retarded people who probably dont watch the news electing presidents.

Who's he, other than RFK's son?
He's a congressman

...Robert Kennedy, Jr. has already said, in effect, that Katrina was the result of Bush's failure to sign the Kyoto treaty...
That's a stupid thing to say, for even if Kyoto had been in effect already Global Warming wouldn't be projected to slow down for years yet.
That being said, the consensus with climatologists is that this season is so bad because the water is particularly warm in the Gulf right now, and that there certainly has been the warming (man-made or not) and the storms that seem to become more frequent and stronger.

That's a stupid thing to say, for even if Kyoto had been in effect already Global Warming wouldn't be projected to slow down for years yet.
That being said, the consensus with climatologists is that this season is so bad because the water is particularly warm in the Gulf right now, and that there certainly has been the warming (man-made or not) and the storms that seem to become more frequent and stronger.
Also, it is currently agreed that global warming would only be significant enough to heat surface water. The hurricanes feed off water fathoms deep. This particular season, both Katrina and Rita have fed off the Loop Current, or superheated water from the surface to 400 ft. deep. This stuff happened at the beginning of the 20th century.

Actually, last I heard they weren't growing more numerous, just more powerful. We still have roughly the same amount of storms as we had, say, 100 years ago.

He's a congressman
No, he's not. He's the senior attorney for the National Resource Defense Council and the chief prosecuting attorney for Roverkeeper, two envirnmental groups. You know, if you're going to talk shit about a guy, you ought to at least know who he is.

Actually, last I heard they weren't growing more numerous, just more powerful. We still have roughly the same amount of storms as we had, say, 100 years ago.
That's right--the frequency runs in cycles, about every 30 years or so. We'll be in a high activity cycle for about the next ten or so, and then it'll drop off. Global warming is intensifying the storms, however.

Fair enough, I'm not an expert...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23889-1792386,00.html

That's right--the frequency runs in cycles, about every 30 years or so. We'll be in a high activity cycle for about the next ten or so, and then it'll drop off. Global warming is intensifying the storms, however.
That shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, so long as people are vigilant. Without hurricanes, how else will sea temperatures be moderated?

That shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, so long as people are vigilant. Without hurricanes, how else will sea temperatures be moderated?
The 'canes themselves aren't a worry so much as the fact that they're getting more powerful is.

The 'canes themselves aren't a worry so much as the fact that they're getting more powerful is.
I think that could be offset if we learn how to deal with them. Take Katrina. I believe that it could've been prevented, and not just with the initial preparations. The Army Corp of Enginneers's plan for the Mississippi may be good for shipping, but is destroying wetlands in Louisianna. Those wetlands help to shelter it. The Corp, or whoever controls the Mississippi in the future, must learn to balance the two. Little things like that.

I think that could be offset if we learn how to deal with them. Take Katrina. I believe that it could've been prevented, and not just with the initial preparations. The Army Corp of Enginneers's plan for the Mississippi may be good for shipping, but is destroying wetlands in Louisianna. Those wetlands help to shelter it. The Corp, or whoever controls the Mississippi in the future, must learn to balance the two. Little things like that.
About 4 days after Katrina hit, there was a big op-ed in the NY Times by a guest writer about precisely that issue. A lot of research has been done on it and there are some varying opinions on what exactly to do, but most of it sounds interesting, including a set of seagates on Lake Pontchartrain similar to what the Netherlands has.

About 4 days after Katrina hit, there was a big op-ed in the NY Times by a guest writer about precisely that issue. A lot of research has been done on it and there are some varying opinions on what exactly to do, but most of it sounds interesting, including a set of seagates on Lake Pontchartrain similar to what the Netherlands has.
Wouldn't be a bad idea. The lake, unlike the North Sea or the Venetian Lagoon, is only a few feet deep. but efforts to control weather are futile. Many complain that this is a reason for the US to sign Kyoto. I say that the world should scrap it altogether. It won't control the weather one bit. It's a bit like firing cannons into hailstorms.