Everyone one who reads this knows how fond I am of one of our former Presidents, Harry S. Truman. I was born in Missouri and always felt a certain kinship with President Truman and in particular the sign he had on his desk which read: The Buck Stops Here.
Every president we have had since then, with the exception of John F Kennedy, has seemed to forgotten that they are the leader of this great land of ours and that they bear the ultimate responsibility for our country's direction or lack thereof. When government policy goes wrong, the president is to blame. When a national crisis occurs, the president is the person who the nation should turn to for leadership.
When the 9-11 attacks occurred our country seemed completly taken by surprise. This was odd, of course, because as recently as one month before the attacks our president was told that terrorists were planning to attack our country using airplanes as missles. After the attacks, it wasn't until days had passed that I felt that George Bush was leading at all. In fact, in the hours after the attack the person who seemed to dive right in to the crisis and work the problem was the mayor of New York, Rudy Guilliani. I guess I felt better knowing that at least someone with some authority was trying to create solutions.
Here we are four years later and a national crisis has occurred, worse than 9-11, and the government response has been abominable. People were literally dying while our government, supposedly preapred for national disasters, did ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING. And once again, the spin doctors are out blaming FEMA and the Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff for not responding quickly enough. Or my favorite excuse, that the folks down there were just too stupid and poor to leave their homes. This coming from people that are supposed to have restored morality in our government. Once again, I have to ask, do any of these people actually read the Bible and know what Jesus was all about?
You can point the finger at all the governmental departments you want but in the end I know what my friend Harry would say: the president is the one in charge. And our president's reaction was excatly the same as 9-11 and the Tsunami disaster: indifference followed by paralysis followed by PR spin followed by a call to his daddy and President Clinton to bail him out once again.
I guess PL and Crab will be all over me being a Bush hater with too much bias so I guess my opinion will be invalidated once again but the image of President Bush playing a guitar on vacation (just as he was before 9-11) while people in the city of New Orleans were wondering when help would come absolutley sickened me. It proves all along what I have been saying: Bush doesn't really care about common people or is just so out of touch with reality that it's scary.
I feel once again like I am describing a crime that is painfully obvious what has occurred but will be diluted into PR spin until all is forgotten. The "liberal" media is saying the same thing I am but already the "conservative" media is criticizing them for armchair quarterbacking. Armchair quaterbacking?
Our governement as been warned for years about the dangers of flooding in New Orleans. As recently as 2002 a report was filed detailing EXACTLY what has happened over the last few days. Just as we failed to heed the warnings of 9-11, we have utterly failed to prevent the magnitude of this crisis. And, given the complete ineffectiveness of our current leader, we will fail again to prevent any kind of future disaster or attack on our country. And why?
I only point to the inevitable responses that will come after this post: Bush isn't responsible for this or that or I am too biased etc...in other words, the 60 million dumb fuckers that voted for this man will once again defend his ability to lead.
And once again, because reality is so fucking subjectively out of whack, we will all just accept it until something else happens. Then the debate will start all over again. I am curious how many more American bodies, because we are looking at around 20, 000 in New Orleans, 1700 in Iraq, and 2000 on 9-11, it will take before we all realize how important it is to elect a leader that actually knows what he is doing. This doesn't even include the countless thousands of people from other countries who have lost their lives because of a completly useless leader.
Obviously, acts of nature are not George Bush's fault. But preparedness and protection are his responsibility. Even he admitted this week that they did a poor job. He is going to have to go a lot farther than that. The War in Iraq has long been a distraction from what our real focus should be and that is protecting our own borders against the next terrorist attack. And natural disasters tie in to this sort of emergency management.
What the fuck have we been doing for the last four years, people!!??
Take a look at the City of New Oreleans (a city which I know Crab loves and is now gone forever) and watch what unfolds over the next few days and weeks and you tell me if you think our current administration was being responsible. You tell me if you think they were effective in managing this crisis after they pull body after body out of the water.
26 comments:
GWB kind of reminds me of Truman in some ways.
Like Truman, Bush came to the White House greatly underestimated. People made fun of his speechmaking ability, his leadership potential, even his intelligence. Leaders in the Democratic Party compared Truman unfavorably to his Democratic predecessor as well.
Truman got to be president mainly because some Democrats didn’t want Henry Wallace to be the ailing FDR’s vice-president a second time. Of course, Truman’s enemies couldn’t make that same claim in 1948, when he pulled off the biggest upset in presidential history, knocking off Thomas Dewey. For his part, we were told, Bush got the job because the electorate in Florida didn’t know how to cast their ballots and because the U.S. Supreme Court was part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Bush speaks of an Axis of Evil – and he names names. For his part, Truman waged the Cold War because he recognized that evil exists in the world, and you either combat it or you become its accessory. And for men of honor, the latter course is never an option.
In Truman’s day, the appeasers claimed the Soviet Union was not a danger to America or the world. They claimed Joseph Stalin was, at worst, a tinhorn dictator ruling a backward nation; at best, a heroic leader who had helped defeat the Nazis. When he gobbled up all of Eastern Europe, enslaving hundreds of millions of people, they defended him. Stalin needed a buffer – after all, mother Russia had been invaded by Napoleon and Hitler. They pointed out that Germany had slaughtered millions of Russians, while ignoring the brutal fact that for a quarter of a century, Stalin had done the exact same thing with never a peep heard from the American left. Now the children and grandchildren of these people cast Bush, not Saddam Hussein, in the role of villain. They call Bush a Texas cowboy just as they used to call Truman a Missouri haberdasher.
Indeed I have been following the huricane story as one of my ex-GF’s, Yvonne, lived in NO until last week. Thankfully she is safe and living back in MN now. The city will be back - it’s not gone forever and I plan on going down there to party again once it is back up as I think every dollar I spend down there will help.
This blog would be pretty boring if everyone agreed with everyone and it's so easy to throw out dramatic "what-if's" in a situation like this so here’s my go at it. I’m not going to blame Bush hatred; I’m going to provide some things the local govt could have done, than I’m going to kick some facts on y’all. Holla back yo.
Fact - budget cuts regarding the American Corps of Engineers have been made by the last 4 presidents in regards to the levees in Nawlins, but never mind all that - there's blame to assign. NO had plenty of money to spend on the Superdome, a brand spankin new convention center, among other things.
Throughout the coverage, I was hoping to see at least 1 news report that didn't contain "Bush" in it or maybe a proactive solution or idea....maybe something along the lines of focusing on the New Orleans city government who issued a mandatory evacuation and didn't provide buses or transportation to get citizens the hell out of dodge. They knew full well that a Category 4 or 5 hurricane would probably break the levees, yet they didn't proactively provide a way for the poor and elderly to evacuate. Upfront planning would have curbed some of the death and misery for so many people and that involves local government. The local government has known for 40 years that those levees couldn't withstand more than a category 3 hurricane, so why is it the current presidents fault? Now that I’m done fishing for the weekend, my next project is to enlighten you all what Bill Clinton did to improve this levee situation and how this administration’s policies are so different.
George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.
The current assault on GWB could be another Wellstone funeral moment so by all means keep it up. Your solution to my problem is greatly appreciated. Here’s a gem I ran across that is too good to not pass along…the following is cut and pasted….please check the link.
The Disaster Process and Disaster Aid Programs - Response and Recovery - First Response to a disaster is the job of local government's emergency services with help from nearby municipalities, the state and volunteer agencies. In a catastrophic disaster, and if the governor requests, federal resources can be mobilized through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for search and rescue, electrical power, food, water, shelter and other basic human needs.
The Major Disaster Process
A Major Disaster Declaration usually follows these steps:
* Local Government Responds, supplemented by neighboring communities and volunteer agencies. If overwhelmed, turn to the state for assistance;
* The State Responds with state resources, such as the National Guard and state agencies;
* Damage Assessment by local, state, federal, and volunteer organizations determines losses and recovery needs;
* A Major Disaster Declaration is requested by the governor, based on the damage assessment, and an agreement to commit state funds and resources to the long-term recovery;
* FEMA Evaluates the request and recommends action to the White House based on the disaster, the local community and the state's ability to recover.
http://www.fema.gov/library/dproc.shtm
One final Gem – cut and pasted……”The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating”.
Speaking of Giuliani, where was the local “Giuliani” who stepped up during this crisis?
Speaking of GWB “not doing anything” about hearing reports that terrorists were “planning” to attack us, if he had done something, our news stories for the last 4 years would have gone something like this……
”Bush's Sept. 10 bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and seizure”.
Or maybe they would have gone like this…..”The purpose of the 9/10 commission was to try to determine what compelled the president to launch a war against Afghanistan” followed by ”At Rice's and Clarke's urging, Bush called a meeting of principals and, after "connecting the dots," decided to wage war against Afghanistan. What did the dots say? Not much, in retrospect. Apparently, the president decided to bomb a benign country on the basis of "chatter" that hinted at "something big" was going to happen. With no other details on the "big," and weaving together random bits of information from a variety of questionable sources, Bush and company decided that 19 fundamentalist Muslim fanatics would fly airplanes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on 9-11”.
While it is true that many people across government line ignored safety concerns over the levee, I still contend it is the President's responsibility to stay on top of this stuff.
If, as you say, the people should have known the graveness of the situation then the President ought to know the graveness of the aftermath.
My chief beef here is the goverment's horrible (non-existent) response to what has happened. There is just no excuse for it.
I'll save the how Truman is like Bush debate for another day. What does everyone else think about the response to this tragedy?
Well Markadelphia, you are a "Bush hater". There's not really any question about that. Whether or not that fact alters your viewpoint on his policies or actions is subject to debate. As I said before....you say it doesn't alter your perception, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I didn't have much time recently to reflect on the events in NO. However, after the long weekend on the lake, when I finally returned home, unhitched my boat from the Expedition, and settled into my easy chair with a double tall latte mocha cappuccino and turned on FNC, all seemed to be going well, so I just assumed that nothing else could be done.
Really, though....I agree with you that this was an opportunity (as sad as it is to call a deadly hurricane an opportunity) for GWB to distinguish himself as president. To me it seems as if his primary failure in this situation was faith in his people. We both know that GWB was in contact with his underlings, who apparently were telling him "It's under control." As the failure became apparent, I think he did an adequate job of kicking people in the ass and getting the job done. Adequate's not great, but adequate also is not total failure, as characterized. The initial breakdown of local and state authorities and the subsequent poor immediate response seems to be the fundamental problem, and that is no more GWB's fault than it is OBL's (hmmmm). But I think it's true that GWB could have shown more initiative and been more proactive in assuring that the federal response, once initiated, was overwhelmingly successful.
Having said that, I certainly would not accuse GWB or any other official involved of indifference to the plight of these people. I believe such condemnation should be directed two ways:
1) Those "people" to whom the rules of law and society meant nothing once the infrastructure broke down. Just like the kid in my science class who couldn't get himself to say "penis and vagina" and consequently caused us all to miss our field trip to the Science Musuem, these idiots that looted, murdered, shot at emergency workers, etc., although small in number, ruined it for everybody and hurt everybody's chances at survival. They truly showed an indifference to human life and a loss of a sense of reality.
2) Also actively indifferent are those who are loudly and publicly flailing about trying to pin the blame on anybody associated with GWB. I am left wondering how many of them have given blood, purchased goods, donated money, and/or voluteered their houses as shelters for refugees, things that a multitude of more common folk managed to do. Until they've found a way to work those tasks into their busy schedule of TV interviews, I don't have much time for what they're saying. And if they've already done those things once, they should be doing them again, as there are still people in need.
So, would the Mayor of New Orleans, the congressional memebers of both parties and the Governors of all three states be people who "are loudly and publicly flailing about trying to pin the blame on anybody associated with GWB."
Anybody associated with GWB is the federal goverment because ultimately he is the CEO of the government. Yeah, he is kicking ass now but there was nothing done for five days and all the people I mentioned above were complaining.
I didn't really understand how bad it was until the forementioned officials took to the airwaves and said how bad it really was down there.
If I didn't have two kids to take care of, I would be down there helping out. No question.
OHM.....
Wow...wow wow wow. I love this shit. Everyone has a great point of view. What I think this is all outlining ( or it is to me anyway ) is the fact that our beareaucracy is FAILING. I'm not going to point my finger at one politician involved, I'm going to point my finger at ALL of them. They ALL fell down.
Crabby-nice to point out the fact that the Dept of Homeland Security has a process. A process which boggs EVERYONE down anytime we have a national disaster. There is so much fucking red tape to wade through, no wonder it's easier to point a finger and say "this is your fault".
As I believe it, this country was founded on principles that we as a nation would take care of ourselves. Our government was set up to do just that, GOVERN us. I probably would have to give a civics lesson in order to get my point across, fact of the matter is, this should be common knowledge and isn't. Which that in itself is a shame.
The ignorance of the people when it comes to our governing laws is something to be laughed at. I now see why we are the laughing stock of the world. We say one thing and do the exact opposite. With that being said, onward into my tirade!
Bush sat on his ass in this matter. There is no if's ands or butts about it. He sat there. As did the Mayor..wait he didn't sit there, he ran around like chicken little claiming that the sky is falling. It did. Where was his responsibility? Why isn't he taking any responsibility for not declaring marshall law and forcing everyone out of town? Also, where was the governor in this decision? Where was he in the warnings? What did he proactively do to get these people out of town? That's the STATE's job, not the Fed's. I believe we fought the civil war in order to establish this kind of power. State's rights vs. Federal Government's rights. We didn't WANT the federal gov't dictating what we do at a state level. So tell me, in this unfortunate disaster, where is the state of LA's responsibility in this matter? Why is this not being looked at a little bit more closely?
I believe this nation needs a new facelift via politicians. They're all to be held accountable because I believe they are no longer out there to help the people, but to help themselves. They have no morals or ethics. It's all about the "process". They need to start stepping up and taking accountability for thier actions and votes. But they don't, they run and hide to cover thier asses. Our government is ruining the integrity of this great country. It unfortunately takes disasters of this magnitude to bring this to light. The even sadder thing? How long is it going to be before people start forgetting again, they way they did with 9-11? Are they going to remember this in the 2008 presidential elections? Are they going to remember this in the future gubnatorial and mayoral elections? Depending on when they fall, probably not. Because at that time, it is going to be more than likely that life will have started to go on....which leads me into..
DID YOU SEE THE FOLKS IN THE FRENCH QUARTER SITTING AT THE BAR ALREADAY? Why are they not out there cleaning up thier dear city? why are they not helping thier neighbors go through what's left of thier belongings? What is the matter with people now days???UGH!
Here is a link my cousin sent me from the London Times. Sorta sums up how I feel...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1764115,00.html
I have so many issues with the Mayor of New Orleans and certain things he's said (and the way he's said them) that I can't really get started. I'll let him slide only because he's an individual who has been under a great deal of stress and obviously he's just not cut out to handle it.
Beyond that, I believe most criticism from political leaders has been measured and appropriate. It's refreshing to see people such as Trent Lott not only criticize the President but provide specific instances where the system has failed and is currently failing. H.Clinton stepped forth with a reasonable assessment and suggestion for improvement. The key to these criticisms being 1) they are constructive, and 2) they are not personal attacks on GWB or assignment of blame for the sake of blaming. The people with whom I take exception are pretty much your standard group of politicians who offer little if any value to a productive climate...Sharpton, Reid, Edwards, etc., along with the all-too-vocal celebritites who feel as if their opinion should somehow matter to us. These are the people that need to spend less time yapping and more time helping. Their brand of "help" is something we can all do without.
I have noticed that there has been bipartisan criticism of the way Katrina and the levee disaster were handled. I think this is a good thing. Of course when there are bodies being eaten by rats within ear-shot of politicians of both kinds giving congratulatory speeches patting each other on the back over brilliant leadership, I guess there is no choice but to criticize both democrats and republicans alike.
However, when one looks at a timeline of the events leading up to this last week, it seems to me like this disaster started back at the beginning of the Bush administration. Starting with hiring incompetant directors of important agencies like FEMA. That, followed by budget cuts to the Corps of Engineers that kept New Orleans and Louisiana from doing the work that needed to be done to update the levees to begin with.
Should Bush take responsibility for this? Not neccesarily. A real leader worthy of the respect that people like Crabmaster have for him would. A honorable and considerate man would have departed from his vacation on Monday rather than Wednesday. Yes, he was in touch with his people, but a real leader would have mobilized himself and gone out of his way to acknowledge the disaster that was already underway on Monday morning after the hurricane had mostly passed. PL had it right in that it was an opportunity to really show some leadership. What I saw was a man disconnected to the worst natural disaster to hit the U.S. in my lifetime. Eventually he came around to kick people into gear, but what choice did he have? Could he have ignored this situation? I think not. I equate Bush's response to the loutish husband who has forgotten to give his wife an anniversary gift. The wife scowls and he goes to the store and buys her a big diamond. The gift is adequate, but a caring, honorable man would not have forgot or ignored to begin with.
There will be blame for Louisiana, New Orleans and the federal government in this affair, but when the roots are traced back, it will inevitably go back to ill advised tax cuts, subsequent budget and staff cuts and the hiring of people who don't have enough experience to hold the positions they were hired for.
It seems that several posts mentioned the state and city responses as being contributors to the problem. That seems fair, but I would also be interested to see who thought this disaster has effects solely at the city and/or state level. If gas refining for a large chunk of the south is based in Louisiana, I guess that supercedes the state/city level. If having a million people displaced and jobless will have an impact to the U.S. economy, then I guess it exceedes the limits of the city/state. I guess that having a city like New Orleans and adjacent areas taken out of commission for a year or even 6 months really becomes a threat to the security of the U.S. I guess that makes it of federal concern and worthy of federal dollars to insure timely actions to minimize damage caused by natural disasters.
That being said, the buck won't stop at Bush, he and his staff have become accustomed to sliding out from underneath responsibility for all sorts of things where proof has nearly been incontrovertable. Assuming that nothing illegal took place in the creation of this disaster, it is clear that there will be no ramifications for Bush. He can't be re-elected and once he is gone, who cares. We'll spend the next 8 years undoing the messes he has made as we have done with past Republican administrations and life will go on. Sad, but true.
If I were a Bush administration supporter, I would wonder what would have happened if New Orleans had been the site of a terrorist attack that involved the placement of explosives on the levee in the first place. The results would have been the same only there would have been no warning. If this is the protection that the Bush administration is offering, it is almost as if nothing has changed since he came into office. Except the billion dollar a day war in Iraq of course. If the Bush administration was worthy of my respect/admiration/praise, I would hope they could handle situations like New Orleans in less time than what has happened so far.
Of course that is just me.
John pointed out something that is going to be a growing story in the coming days. Why was someone with no experience in disaster management appointed to lead FEMA?
As CEO, it is Bush's job to make sure that competent people run his government. Then again, his foreign policy experience was 0 before he became president and yet people felt he was the right man for the job. Just out of curiousity, does anyone know if it's true that Bush, up until he became President, had never left our country?
It all comes down to inexperience. Are these people really qualified to run our country?
Once again, the Onion tells the real truth.
http://www.theonion.com/content/index
Looks like a few things need repeating……
Fact - budget cuts regarding the American Corps of Engineers have been made by the last 4 presidents in regards to the levees in Nawlins, but never mind all that - there's blame to assign. NO had plenty of money to spend on the Superdome, a brand spankin new convention center, among other things.
George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.
Regarding when Bush should have returned from his vacation, sounds just like the scandal about Bush continuing to read the childrens book on the morning of 9/11, a scandal that exists only in the minds of the members of the Michael Moore wing of the democratic party, a wing who is not that great in number, they’re just really loud.
The tax cut had nothing to do with anything here. I don’t think it is a zero-sum game as politicians would have spent that money on something else anyway.
If you want to look for the roots of the problem, keep digging and you’ll see that there are hurricane procedures in place that the local government did not follow. Start with the Louisiana Hurricane Evacuation Plan which is what the mayor and the governor were supposed to follow and didn’t. That’s where the provision of "The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles may be used to provide transportation for individuals who require assistance in evacuating" is located. Then their “mandatory” evacuation wasn’t very “mandatory”, they allowed people to stay if they wanted and they just bused people to the superdome, which was supposed to be used as a last resort and it was used as a first resort. That same local evacuation plan clearly states that a refuge of last resort may not have food and water available.
Keep on digging for the roots and eventually you’ll find education (something you are very familiar with). Want to avoid standing on a rooftop when the next disaster rolls around then get your education. This country provides every citizen a chance to get one - public libraries are free; scholarships, financial aid, and grants of all kinds are everywhere. But no politician can make anyone learn or develop a skill. If some refuse to do the hard work that education requires, and millions of kids do exactly that - refuse, they're going to be ill equipped to compete in the marketplace. The root I found could be....If you refuse to learn, if you refuse to get a job, if you become addicted, if you let gangster rap be a guide for your life, you will be poor and powerless just like many of those in New Orleans.
I’m not too worried about the political fallout anymore as the race hustlers and poverty pimps, Jackson and Sharpton, have hit the ground down there now. Kanye West says – “they've given them permission to go down and shoot us. George Bush doesn't care about black people”.
Please keep them on TV.
And as I said in my first post, the spin begins. Something that shouldn't be a debate is now a debate.
Sorry, Crab, but people in your own party are mortified at Bush's response to this tragedy. The "Michael Moore" crowd now consists of Bill Frist and Newt Gingrich. For all your talk of responsibilty, where is the president's? He is responsible for FEMA and The Department of Homeland Security.
The reponse is the problem here, not the disaster itself or possible prevention. I think the Onion headline "Natioanl Guard moseys in to New Oreleans" is appropiate. Who is repsonsible for them? The president.
As far as the people who stayed there and ignored warnings, who are we to judge? We have no idea what their situaion is or was. What would you really do? And regardless of what they did, it's still our moral obligation to help them. Where are the moral values now?
I think it is more an issue of class than race. Many people down there are poor. They don't want to leave all the own only to come back and have everything stolen if the hurricane wasn't as severe. And as far as your comment about sick or infirm people, wow, really warm stuff there. Isn't that the same excuse that Michael Brown used to deflect criticism?
The fact is that many people in Congress on both sides of the aisle, starting with all the hurricanes in Florida, have been bemoaning FEMA and the fedreal government's repsonse to these natural disasters for years.
And ah yes, the race thing. Dude, seriously take a look at how the media spun some of the images out NO. Really bad.
As I predicted not long ago, the president will utterly fail at something and people will still think he did a good job. That's our country now. Can't wait for the next collasal fuck up in which more people die needlessly due to this administration's complete ineptitude.
Crab, You missed the point of my last post. It is probably my fault for being too wordy. The point was that George Bush and his supporters should not be looking to others to put blame on. He should take responsibility for his poor choices and lack of response. Whether it is deserved or not, whether he has to or not, is irrelevant. The mark of a good leader is to accept responsibility and make ammends. Bush has made an effort to make ammends by spending more money that we don't have (thanks in no small part to the occupation of Iraq) to repair the damage. As for taking responsibility, I don't suspect we will see that.
People will make a deal of why he didn't return from his vacation when the disaster started. The fact is that he didn't. I said he didn't legally have to, but that to show his strong leadership skills, he should have. No conspiracy there, just sound political advice.
As Markadelphia and PL has stated, the criticism of the administration has been from all sorts of people, not just people who you lump together as "liberals" or "democrats" or whatever intellectually lazy term you are currently using.
Education is important, but lack therof was not the sole determinant on why people left or didn't leave. I happen to have a very close friend in New Orleans that has weathered the hurricane and the aftermath. She is well educated and was attending law school at Tulane when this happened. She couldn't leave because of being afraid of being beaten or shot to death by looters up until this weekend. Where was the National Guard? I can't prove it yet, but I would be interested to see what the National Guard troop deployment in the occupation of Iraq that come from Louisiana and Mississippi is.
Spin away, dodge, cover for and do whatever makes you feel okay to defend this president and his administration. But before you do that, you should re-read what I posted. The second point that you should have gathered was that if the system of reaction was poor, it should have been re-evaluated and re-vamped so that a serious threat to the security of the U.S. could be avoided or mitigated. New Orleans is the hub of gas production for the region and it is one of the largest ports in the country. Clearly not an area that should be left to the fluctuating economic and political whims of local governments. Your champion has had 5 years to do something about it and despite all of the lip service, things are not better now then they were before when it comes to security and protection of this nation. Five years is a long time in the framework of a presidents terms.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself for your comments on the people who have suffered as a result of the disaster. I don't know if you are a racist or not, but your references sure make you sound like one. No matter what those people have done or not done does not give you free reign to cast aspersions. If you are truly a supporter of Bush and his ideals, then a little "Christian" charity is in order. I don't suspect that Jesus would have said the things that you have, but then again Jesus wouldn't have authorized wars or approved of classes of people based on their income.
To Markadelphia...
Bill Frist and Newt Gingrich can ask all the questions they want, I hope they get answers. Of course they want you to think that they have a mind of their own but their statements just remind me that both of them are thinking about a run for prez in 08 and they are just trying to get their face on TV.
The governor of Louisiana has authority over and can call for the National Guard as well.
How can you fit the sentence “As far as the people who stayed there and ignored warnings, who are we to judge?” right in amongst your calls for responsibility? What would I have done? Loaded up the back of my truck with everything important I could fit in it and high-tail it out of there as soon as the mandatory evacuation orders were given. I’m not going to answer that question in the context of being poor because I’m not poor, don’t plan on being poor, and I made the decisions and the necessary sacrifices to ensure that I don’t end up like that.
Regarding the sick people...it wasn’t meant to be warm and fuzzy because political correctness is nothing more than the denial of a reality that is uncomfortable. I don't feel the responsibility (that word again) to purchase kid gloves so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings and if people have a problem with the jagged truth that my statement can't help but be a prisoner to then there’s not much I can do about that.
When 90% of the people stuck in the city after the hurricane are black and 90% of the pictures and stories you read regarding the looting of stores, hospitals, etc show blacks doing the looting that’s not racism - that’s the law of statistics. I’ve seen the pictures to which you refer...besides, you keep telling me the media isn’t biased and doesn’t have an agenda...so now they do?
Show me in my posts where I said GWB is doing a good job in response to this hurricane. You have a problem with people having blind loyalty to Bush – is blind hatred any better?
To John...
GWB taking responsibility for this will not end the criticism being launched at him and at this point in time would only serve as something symbolic that the liberals (that word again, you know it’s true) could use as a hammer to beat him over the head with.
Me saying “liberals” is not an intellectually lazy term – it’s a generalization and I do it all the time. We all generalize all the time, just like Markadelphia did when he said “the president will utterly fail at something and people will still think he did a good job” and I don’t see a problem with him saying that in itself, it’s the accuracy of the generalization that should be the issue. Same thing – different side of the political spectrum. The problem lies in whether or not the generalization is true or false. I’ve noticed that many liberals don’t like being labeled as liberals – speaks volumes about that political philosophy at this point in time.
My ex girlfriend got out rather quickly on the last weekend of August when everyone was given the mandatory evacuation orders and she didn’t even go to college.
If posting the local hurricane evacuation procedures and following that up with a timeline of exactly what happened (or didn’t happen) that led up to those people being stuck in the superdome can be considered “spin” then I think some people are in denial or are indeed consumed with Bush hatred. None of the facts I posted or the timeline of events I posted with regards to the hurricane have been refuted thus far.
Saying “my champion” is just as lazy as me saying “liberal”. I’m pro-choice, pro-decriminalization of Marijuana, pro-legalization of prostitution, I don’t care if 2 gay people want to get married, I don’t care if someone burns the flag and I am pro-stem cell research. So while I agree with many liberal ideals, I also believe that policies designed to legislate them have failed miserably and have actually hurt those they've intended to help. I don’t think Bush is the best person for the job right now but I could type a novel as to why I think he’s a damn better choice than Kerry would have been based solely on Kerry’s voting record and statements on the senate floor and the campaign trail.
Ahh yes, here comes the inevitable “prove your opponent a racist” as if that will justify anything anyone else has said. You and Charlie did the exact same thing to Markadelphia in 2003, I remember it well (“sounds like Klan talk...you sound like a Nazi”), seems to be a default mechanism of yours. The accusation of racism links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The person who uses this technique hopes that the readers will reject the person or their ideas simply on the basis of being associated with the negative symbol, instead of looking at the evidence available in my posts. What better way to attempt to get your opponent back in line - just call them a racist and get them to backpedal. Nice try but it doesn’t work with me. Re-read what I said above about political correctness.
So if one is a Bush supporter they have to be Christian? Wow, news to me...sounds like a generalization. I had $100 automatically deducted out of my paycheck last week as my company matched our donations and I have a large pile of clothes I don’t wear anymore that is set to go to the Salvation Army clothing drop boxes that have sprung up at the various Cub foods grocery stores up here.
This whole transfer of opinions of grandiose, un-founded interpretations of what people think they know is preposterous and is becoming boring to me as far as this subject goes because there are 3 sides to this story – my side, your side, and the truth. That being said, I won’t be quitting posting anytime soon so fire away.
It all goes back to the saying that you should never judge a man or woman until you have walked a mile in their moccassins. It's great that you would've high tailed it out. Others didn't. And to say they deserve what they got despite warnings is just ludicrous. Hell some people still aren't leaving. Regardless of whether or not people are stubborn, we still have to help them.
I criticize Bush because he deserves it. Not because I hate him. I really didn't like Reagan at the time but I have to admit that he was a lot smarter and a lot better of a president than most thought.
Bush is a lousy president. He is probably the worst we have ever had. And I know history will prove me right. His actions and inactions have made this country the laughing stock of the world. Gore would've done a better job. Kerry would've been even better. These are just my opinions as is yours about typing a novel about Bush being better than Kerry.
If you are "pro-choice, pro-decriminalization of Marijuana, pro-legalization of prostitution, I don’t care if 2 gay people want to get married, I don’t care if someone burns the flag and I am pro-stem cell research," than why are you a Republican? Or at least today's defintion of a Republican?
I think your criticism of me being NOT BUSH is the same as what you think about Democrats. NOT DEMOCRATS. It's just a knee jerk reaction to a time when Dems were pretty corrupt. Now they just don't do anything because the Republicans have been very effective in demonizing them.
You listed 6 things that are not Republican agenda items. So what 6 things are you in agreement with? And I am taking about current Republican values not the whole less government-state's rights view that has seemed to go out the window with the current administration.
I'll be the ass that questions the notion that Regardless of whether or not people are stubborn [refused to leave], we still have to help them. BS. Mandatory doesn't mean "if you feel like it", and if you make the conscious decision to ignore that order then you move to the back of the line in terms of priority. As far as I'm concerned, they should be rescuing cats and dogs before they get around to rescuing your ass. Only human arrogance supports the notion that a human life is more valuable than other lives.
Just like with the person who flees from police (as far as I'm concerned, all such situations should end with a bullet in the head) I believe there is such a thing as forfeiting your rights when you choose to not play by the rules. I don't care how rich you are, what color your skin is, how long you've been in this country, etc.
For those who were unaware (really?) or unable to get out, that's a different story. They needed GWB and crew to come riding in on a white horse (sorry....racially diverse horse) to save them. I don't think it necessarily was GWB's job to do this, but clearly it was something that he could have made happen had he stayed more personally involved in the process. Missed opportunity to be a leader, and frankly one that he could ill afford to miss. I'll stop there with my cricism, lest it be confused for a categorical condemnation of all GWB actions, past and present.
Who decides worthiness of being saved? I will, if nobody else wants to. Probably why I would have an even shorter political career than Crabby.
Ultimately, though, we need to take responsibility for those who can't take repsonsibility for themselves. Remember, PL, "Blessed are the...." I think you get the idea.
As far as Bush being like Truman, uh, well, I don't think there is any comparison at all. Truman came from a poor background and Bush a rich one. Truman volunteered for the Army at the age of 38 and served his country in WWI. Bush...what did he do again in the military?
Bush is a horrible speaker but that is because he has dyslexia, not something to make fun of. This challenge for him has nothing to do with the fact that he is not very smart. Truman was much smarter man than he let on.
Truman constantly fought for the common man, the working man, the ordinary Missouri type and against Big Business when he basically put several corporate leaders in the 1930s and 1940s out of job and in jail. He was pro-union. Bush, well I think you live in a bubble here, Crab, and I think the last couple weeks proves that Bush's chief focus is the War in Iraq and how I can make more money for the people that got me elected. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the common man in this country and he has no respect at all for the people that break their backs everyday to make our lives better.
Truman waged a war against the Axis powers of WWII and against Communism. All fine and good. Bush has attacked Iraq and ignored Iran and North Korea who are: a)countries that don't offer him the financial gain he gets from Iraq, b)are currently supplying terrorists with weapons to attack us, and c)being handled by Europe and China diplomatically thus eliminating a more favorable outcome for them not for us. If Truman were president, North Korea and Iran would be under severe pressure to disarm or face undesirable consequences. And the Saudis would be totally fucked right now after 9-11.
You really need to read a history book about the rise and fall of Communism. Stalin was able to take many of those counries over simply because they lacked any kind of structure after WWII. The Russian Army was having its tanks pulled by horses not having any gas to run them. True, Stalin was awful. The Soviet Union was a threat. But I think it is clear that that threat was exagerated to feed the military industrial complex, a term that a Republican president coined.
Really looking at any comparison between these two men is ridiculous anyway as the times have changed so much. But I do know that we have the absolute worst person we could possibly have chosen in office right now. I wonder what the next three years of ineptitude and ineffectiveness will bring.
I’ve never said they deserve what they got. I don’t think they should be surprised at what they got though.
I am pro-choice but you’ll never see me marching at any pro-choice protests. Why? Because the champions of reproductive rights scream and yell about any little restriction proposed regarding abortion as a threat to live and liberty itself. I see no problem with a 24 hour waiting period to inform the woman of the health risks associated with this procedure. I see a problem when 14 year old girls in California can go to a school counselor and get an appointment to have an abortion and get the abortion done without parental notification.
Regarding pot and hookers – sure the fringe left talks about legalizing those things but I think that down the road it will be a republican that does something under the “smaller government” umbrella.
Regarding Stem Cell research – it’s not like stem cell research is illegal now – it just isn’t funded by the government. Where are the drug companies with their fortunes with regards to stem cells?
One of the main reasons I still vote republican is the democrats behavior with regards to the war on terror.
I love how they ask “Where’s Bin Laden”. The War on Terror seems to them as easy as arresting OBL and putting him on trial. The left seems to treat acts of terror as a matter of law enforcement while failing to realize that it is WAR. Capturing and putting the bombers of the first WTC bombing did almost nothing to prevent further terrorism ... it merely took a few out of circulation but it sure didn't prevent al Qaeda from getting more recruits later on. And yet, people want to treat them as common criminals, deal with them one at a time, and give them all of the rights of a U.S. citizen (although the U.S. constitution does not confer ANY rights on foreigners, especially those who attack U.S. citizens). I mean charges? This is not a Michael Jackson Child Molestation hearing, this is war. Are we supposed to bring Lawyers for every single Taliban/Al Qaeda/Insurgent we round up? We're not fighting a Mafia Family, we're fighting armed terrorists. Every day we find bodies of people, tied up and shot in the face, and leaders of the democratic party are on record wanting to get lawyers for these scum and try them in court. Do you think the Allies in WWII gave the Nazi prisoners a lawyer and tried them in court individually? The Gitmo prisoners should be treated as POWs, not defendants on a murder trial. These are the worse scum on earth - people who bomb schools, decapitate people, and execute untold numbers. They don't deserve due process, they don't deserve any legal protection, they can rot in jail until the war on terrorism ends for all I care. If you release them they will go right back to killing innocent people around the globe. They are non-uniformed, enemy combatants. As such, they are not afforded Geneva Convention rights, nor are they to be treated as simple criminals.
Long term sacrifices are going to have to be made in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Without a crystal ball that allows us to see 25 years in the future, I don’t know what will happen over there. If Iraq proves to be a stable democracy then Bush will look brilliant. If they revert back to medievalism and/or are taken over by another tyrant, it will look like a wasted effort. The best one can tell people right now is that people should be informed what people on both sides of the debate are saying at this point in time, but as far as history's actual verdict, we still have to wait a while for that one. I think in the long run history's verdict usually (note: not *always*, but *usually*) wins out over any ideological biased teachings. For example, we can pretty accurately gauge what really happened throughout the history of Rome even though the 'victors' and their contemporaries that wrote the initial historical accounts of what happened most likely had an agenda one way or another.
It’s also this denial or ignorance with regards to what happens in war when the left screams about casualties. As troops advance, if they meet resistance, that resistance gets fired upon; if they spot military movements, it gets fired upon….that is what happens in war. Also, folks get killed in war...not just soldiers, but civilians as well. It is only a war crime if it is killing for its own sake. If somebody, anybody, was not following the instructions of the advancing soldiers, they were a target...that is war, ugly as it is, but that is what it is.
Liberals had a field day (for about 4 days until the truth came out) about a young Marine and his fire team cautiously entering a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with AK-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insurgent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor(doctor)!" He is badly wounded. Suddenly, he pulls from under his bloody clothes a grenade, without the pin. It explodes and the marine catches Shrapnel in the face.
The next day, same Marine, same type of situation, a different story. The young marine and his cover man enter a room with two wounded insurgents. One lies on the floor in puddle of blood, another against the wall. A reporter and his camera survey the wreckage inside, and in the background can be heard the voice of a Marine, "He's moving, he's moving!" The pop of a rifle is heard, and the insurgent against the wall is now dead. Minutes, hours later, the scene is aired on national television, and the Marine is being held for committing a war crime. At that point, that Marine had the possibility of being burned at the stake in the court of public opinion for protecting the life of his fellow soldiers.
Liberals have also had a field day with GITMO, Koran handling, and Abu Gharab. Does anybody think Abu Gharab was worth 53 front page stories in the New York Times? If liberals don't understand the difference between the state sponsored criminal actions of Saddam Hussein's regime and the unfortunate actions of a few Americans it is useless to provide facts to them. While everything would be wonderful, bright and compassionate in a world that played by the rules the fact of the matter is we live in a world that has evil as one of its components. This has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the murders of innocents at the hands of those who practice terror. The murders of Richard Pearl, the four contractors in Fallujah and Nicholas Berg are all examples of the level of barbarism terrorists will use to achieve their goal; domination of the region. The blame for these acts can only rest upon the shoulders of those who actually perform them for after all we do still possess free will as human beings. And when a group of mongrels can use the elimination of human life for shock value, we must all find ourselves in agreement that we are not playing by any set of rules; at least they are not and that is of their own free will.
Is the left under the impression that the goal of the terrorists in Iraq is to force the US to leave? If that were the only goal then you’d be right.....they would do better to just stop all violence and make everybody think that it is all secure and just wait till the US leaves. I think the very basic idea that a lot of anti-Iraq war people are missing is that the main goal of the terrorists is to prevent the establishment of a Democracy in Iraq. Why??? Because they know that a free Democracy would be a threat to all of the dictatorships in the region. Since the dictatorships support these terrorists groups...that would greatly damage the infrastructure of the terrorist’s regimes.
You know what I think about taxes. Why Don't Tax INCREASES Ever Come With an Expiration Date? Let’s not leave out those entitlement social programs that are designed to "solve"(barf) some problem...do they ever go away after they've "solved" the problem? In the most simplistic analysis, Republicans take from the middle class as a way of bolstering big business; the Liberals take from the middle class as a way of bolstering the lower class. Both of them suck the middle class dry, and one of the reasons I side with the Republicans at this point in time, on this particular issue is because we do get a return from our forced investment in big business. We get nothing from the concepts of "the great society". Lesser of two evils you might say.
I don’t care much for trial lawyers, the #1 contributor to the democratic party, having recently outpaced unions in political contributions. There needs to be malpractice caps. The AMA was recently forced to admit that 10% of the doctors were creating 90% of the malpractice suits; therefore the majority of docs, and a large majority, are paying the freight for the bad ones.
Let’s not leave out my personal favorite "take it to the UN." Prior to 9/11, the UN recognized the Taliban Government as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and gave them a seat in the UN. The taliban, shortly after 9/11, announced Osama Bin Laden was their minister of defense, and therefore subject to the protection of the international community for diplomats and heads of states. The UN will never work as long as they continue to confer the same legitimacy to autocracies as they do to governments that are free and have basic civil liberties.
Remember, PL, "Blessed are the...." I think you get the idea.
No, I don't get the idea. Blessed are who? By whom?
There will never be an end to the "War on Terror." It is impossible to kill all of the terrorists or potential terrorists. They are obviously not scared by what happens when the U.S. comes to town. If they were, the rate of terrorism would be dropping instead of rising. There are many who feel that the "War on Terror" is being waged solely to pad the pockets of military and private contractors. Or to pump temporary money into an ailing economy. It doesn't help when these contractors "misplace" millions of dollars. It tends to support the idea of a "less-than-noble" enterprise.
I don't know what the solution to stopping terrorism is. I do know that if you want to see what happens when using force to fight terrorism, look at Israel and the West Bank/Gaza Strip. It may or may not be coming to an end now, but it has the appearence of ending because of diplomatic solutions, because people were sick of killing each other and more imortantly, Israel conceeded some points. Fighting and armed intervention extended the conflict for over 40 years because it kept people like Arafat in power, gave him legitimacy in the eyes of people who felt they were oppressed.
If you take issue with people wanting lawyers for terrorists, that is certainly your perogative, but you are not correct in the fact that lawyers were not provided for Nazis. There was this thing called the Nuremberg trials. Same thing happened in Japan.
People bemoan the loss of American soldiers lives because they do not see the benefit of a war in Iraq or Afghanistan. They see billions of dollars being pumped into an effort that we can't afford, that has increased terrorism at the world level, and that ultimately has very little chances of succeeding. How much of a chance is there that someone could force you (today) to be a muslim living in a theocracy? Ask and answer that question of yourself and you will have the answer to whether the occupation of Iraq will ultimately yield a successful democracy. Actually multiply your answer by at least 4 other factors because we have pushed to convert 4 different peoples with very different cultures into trying to be just like us.
It would be nice if it works out, but it would be a rarity in the history of the world. Like Crabmaster said, history will tell.
My respect has increased for Bush...he actually has taken some responsibility. GOOD FOR HIM!
Blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek for the they shall inherit the earth. The idea I am trying to convey here is that if people are too stubborn, too ignorant, or too poor then the answer is NOT they got what was coming to them. We are, after all, all God's children and we need to help anyone in the city of New Orleans regardless of why they stayed.
Did George Bush just take responsibility for something? Maybe there's hope after all...
So our actions as a society are to be guided and judged by a divine code of ethics? I wasn't aware of that. I can only assume that you don't intend for our government's actions to be guided by that same code, since we all know what a constitutional travesty that would be.
My point is essentially this: our country needs to set a higher standard when it comes to helping people out. You are the one that said in a recent post that, if anything, GWB has restored a discussion of morality in government.
Unfortunetly he is a total hypocrite when it comes to this but I think we need to reach out more to people that aren't as advantaged, ask why, and if they want it, help them. I believe that capitalism is good but the tilt is to heavy on the people up top.
Does a CEO really need 25 million dollars a year? Couldn't he get by on 5 million a year and spread the rest out amongst the workers. Call me a dirty commie if you will but New Orleans demonstrated what is wrong with this country. The amount of impoverished people in this country has risen steadily over the last 5 years. These people can't all be lazy defectives. Most of them, given the chance, could succeed and, at the same time, do a lot of good for the world in general.
There are many ways to accomplish this but they won't ever happen as long as we have people in power was sole motivating factor is greed.
I had to re-read your post several times...still not sure I'm grasping what you are saying. At first I thought you were suggesting that we, as a country, profess to adopt a more "Christian" ethic of helping those less fortunate. I ultimately ruled that out, though, when I considered that the "Christian" ethic isn't really an a la carte menu, allowing us to pick one item and not the others. Although, it would be nice to finally lay those pesky abortion and gay marriage issues to rest.
Then I thought that you were suggesting that the government begin to regulate top-end salaries under the idea that there is such a thing as being "too rich", therefore we're going to stop you from reaching that point. I ruled that out because you said you believe in capitalism, and by definition, the driving factor of earnings is market value.
Finally I think I boiled it down to you believing that, should the government (read GWB) set a better example of taking from the rich and re-distributing to the poor that your expectation would be for CEOs (read "rich people") to eschew earning tens of millions of dollars in favor of simply earning millions. Is that right?
I suspect, quite frankly, that I'm missing your point entirely, particularly with how it relates to GWB and his morality.
But you see that being a Christian, a true Christian in the sense of really following the teachings of Christ, is to love and respect all people. Christ wouldn't care if two people loved each other and they were the same sex. The a la carte stuff, as you put it, has been added over the centuries by men who would like control what you and I do. Gay people are not sinners. Sorry, that was a bunch of horseshit added in by religious zealots over the years.
Christ would also be pro-education or pro-elightenment so therefore abortion would be much less of an issue. More people would be informed about birth control. The religious right's answer is abstinence. Nothing else.
Christ was not a big money guy. He would hope and wish for a world in which all people would be able to share in its wealth. In other words, everyone should get the basics. If they want a widescreen TV, well, they might have to work harder for that. But food, clothing, shelter, transportation? All of these things are free in the 23rd Century in the world of Star Trek. Why does it have to be pipe dream? Why is our culture not capable of driving us to that point?
The only answer I see is that people in power are greedy and want to stay in power. They see wealth as being a way to control the people. And they way our culture is set up, they do.
Bush views himself as being a moral person. There is nothing moral about being against abortion while engaging in war and being pro death penalty. It makes no sense. It's essentially a moral code that they made up. They are the ones that are picking and choosing what they like about the Bible.
It's funny that we are talking about this now as it is the topic of my next column.
The bible says a lot of things, like “If man does not work, man does not eat”. “Getting what was coming to them” might not be the way to describe it….I understand that nobody down there planned to fail but they failed to plan.
Who sets that higher standard? It’s clear to me that during the 1990’s the country got fed up of “helping” the poor so much and my proof lies in the fact that a democrat signed welfare reform. Nobody is against giving people a hand during rough times but everybody I know is against letting some welfare queen suck on the national nipple for 40 years straight. We already do a lot for the poor in this nation. Our poor have TV’s, microwaves, vehicles, cell phones, etc and that is much more than the poor in other nations have. Sorry, but I do view the younger people down there as lazy defectives who would rather have the latest pair on Nike’s on their feet, the latest fashions on their back, the latest $1000 stereo in their $300 vehicle. I’m not seeing how “loving and respecting all people” translates into giving them free stuff. That just creates an entitlement mentality and as Renauldus Maximus (Reagan) once said “A government that is powerful enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take it all away”.
If you tax the “producers” in a society too heavily you remove the incentive for them to continue to work hard. Would you continue to work hard knowing that you would only get to keep 40% of your salary? Take Dell for example. There is a guy who is worth major bucks. He can quit anytime and his family would be secure for generations to come if the money is invested wisely. Now imagine that the government tells Mike that they wanted 90% of his current earnings. He wisely says screw you and simply cashes out. All those jobs are gone. Nobody wins long term when the government stifles business with such a horrendous tax burden. Without the motivating effect of greed, our society would grind to a halt. Fred Smith, the founder of Federal Express, initially inherited his wealth. He spent some of it going to Harvard to get an education, and he bet the rest of it on his company. If he would have lost that bet he would have been a lot less wealthy, if wealthy at all. But instead he won the bet, revolutionized an industry and created thousands of new, good paying jobs in the process. Had his inheritance been confiscated (like Paul Bolin calls for often), none of this would have happened. Just look at how Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have fared with their 75+ years of warfare on the rich. Who do you think provides the capital to fuel the economic engine? It sure isn't the poor, and as the Soviets proved so well, when the government tries to supplant private capital to fuel an economy, the net result is no innovation, no advancement, and abject poverty. The "rich" provide jobs, homes, services, and products. Without them I hope you are real good at hunting because that is what you will be eating.
Isn't "fairness" a rather abstract concept? Your definition is probably different from mine. And historically, attempts to implement economic equality motivated by fairness (which essentially means Marxism) have produced disastrous results. Sorry, I'll take the unfairness of the capitalistic system over that kind of fairness any day.
Here's the real kicker though - life simply isn't fair. Period. Attempts to implement fairness through government typically only lead to even more unfairness. The economic systems of countries such as those with huge welfare states and horrid govt regulation over businesses are set up such that people cannot get rich by investing capital in those countries, and often times that is a direct result of a government policy designed to promote "fairness" as you define it; to prevent the rich from getting richer. Thus, no investment takes place, the poor people there get no jobs and thus they have no opportunity to climb out of poverty - all in the name of "distributing" income "fairly".
Why does the government deserve 20 out every 25 million dollars of somebody else’s salary? Remember freedom? What the hell makes you think the government will put that money towards the greater good of society and not spend it on something else? Taxation like that does not exist in America and that is one of the reasons we are economically a great country. There is no redistribution of wealth without free markets because there is no wealth being created to distribute. The combination will unravel as the combination will be the death of America. Taking thy neighbors' money is theft IMO, regardless of how moral or noble your reasons may be. The larger the government, the more it takes from the producers, ALL producers - rich and no-so-rich - until it collapses. That's how it has always worked throughout history. Free markets depend on voluntary exchanges of money for goods and services, not forced distributions. Only government needs forced distribution to survive.
You, I, nor anybody in New Orleans are owed a paycheck or guaranteed a high paying job. We must make our own way in every economic situation. It is up to the individual not the government. Remember, the people who consistently rank in the worst financial trouble are united by one surprising characteristic. They are parents with children at home.
I guess I approach government as something that should not be intrusive with the firmly held belief that government will screw up anything they try and reality seems to support that case. So we have two entirely different points of view here: the "government can make our lives better" versus "if you want your life ruined, just interject the government" battling it out. Moderates believe both and try to balance what the government could and should do while keeping them out as much as possible. And that requires thought and analysis of the long term impact of policy changes and not the emotional yes or no that the policy of providing basics to people is all about. This is a reactionary policy that will fix one problem only to create many more.
So in an ideal world we could rescind the tax cut and stop the Iraq war, which would place about $500 billion back into the federal treasury right now……your proposal, along with other things like universal healthcare, would be no less than $2 trillion in new spending. Please explain how that is deficit reduction.
Those who risk the capital reap the rewards. It is the stockholder's money that created the company and labor was paid in the wages they agreed to earn. They are entitled to nothing more and nothing less.
Post a Comment