U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-12-2010, 09:39 PM
 
4,403 posts, read 3,558,472 times
Reputation: 2859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90 View Post
Obama a leader? Give it a rest, the man could not lead a boy scout troop out of the woods without screwing it up.
Only lazy butts, losers and welfare bums suffered under Bush. The rest of us flourish under Bush. Once Nancy and Harry took over most of us knew they would screw us all over and sold out before it was too late.
What was so bad under Bush for 8 years for you? Please explain.
Thanks to Bush I retired at 40 years old when I sold my business.
If you think Bush was bad then Obama is a total worthless piece of crap.
Remember it only took Obama less then a year to be considered one of the worst ever and he is living up to it.
Ever see the sign with Bush waving? Miss me yet?
Hell yes we do, we were far better off under Bush then this anti American moronic loser.
America's reputation suffered terribly under Bush.
Everything related to corporate accountability was decimated under Bush.
The environment meant nothing to the Bush/Cheney administration.
3,100+ died on 9/11 under Bush.
Bush embarrassed his country every where he went abroad.

I don't hold any President responsible for economic conditions but it appears that's your sole measure of the person who holds that office. The real estate bubble made me wealthy and I retired briefly under Bush, but he wasn't the cause of my good fortune. There was no other place to put money except real estate after the dotcom bust and I got lucky.

Obama has made mistakes and I think it's becoming more evident that his rhetoric is pure fiction. I didn't vote for him and I wouldn't if given a second chance. But there's no way in hell that he's worse than his predecessor. He's a puppet, that's true, just like so many of them. But I daresay no one on the right side of the ideological spectrum would be doing any better if they had the job right now.

Those "lazy butts, losers and welfare bums" are just as much to blame as those who accomplished a lot for themselves, like you and I apparently. The right always disparages the poor and oppressed but doesn't quite get how foolish that sounds when they cry about being victims themselves and when they too look for someone to blame...like Obama.

As the Bush administration wore on, it became apparent to me that it was a waste to blame Bush. Likewise with Obama. It's time for America to look in the mirror. The problem is staring back at you. Stop being a victim, stop looking for and identifying your perpetrator. Think differently if you want to solve this dilemma.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2010, 09:46 AM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,169 posts, read 4,942,156 times
Reputation: 3373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Yes they are, its written into the Clean Water Act, no one is denying that BP is liable for the clean up and compensation for the oil discharging into the Gulf.


You those 20,000 people and hundreds of ocean vessels cleaning up the oil, that 0bama keeps trying to take credit for? Those people and those ships have mostly been hired by BP thru their Vessels of Opportunity program.

Of course BP wants to limit their liability, anyone faced with such a disaster wants to limit the damage to their company and share holders. So let's not pretend its unusual. Even 0bama has given top priority to limiting his liability, hence the reason for this thread.

Hmm, what was that quote from 0bama?:

"This is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about. Limiting my political liability, for the spill."


Yes, i think a case can be argued that under Bush the regulations were made more

Yes, and have yo even bothered to find out why, or is this just a partisan rant?


"The issues that are happening in the Gulf is less" of everything, less leadership, less coordination, less forethought, less intelligent, less prompt, and more incompetent, then Bush was with Katina.

Katrina should have been avoided had he (Bush) had not diverted the funds in the first place. Thousands of lives were lost while that bumbling j.a peered from AF 1 half azzed concerned. When american lives are at stake and he found it more important to help the citizens of another country, yes I have a probelm. The military has mobile medical units that should have been deployed immediately but were not...why was that? There is no comparision, unless you feel that 11 lives are equal to over 1000.

I have no political party afflilation, so there really is'nt a reason to take sides I was just asking a question.

If he is taking credit for civilians cleaning up he is equally taking blame for the inepitude of the governments slow response time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 10:30 AM
 
17,557 posts, read 6,899,777 times
Reputation: 4034
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
America's reputation suffered terribly under Bush.
Everything related to corporate accountability was decimated under Bush.
The environment meant nothing to the Bush/Cheney administration.
3,100+ died on 9/11 under Bush.
Bush embarrassed his country every where he went abroad.
After the DotCom collapse, when the Clinton era bubble of greed burst, a lot of corporate folks went off to prison from companies like Enron, during the Bush administration. So how many greedy SOBs have gone to prison for the recent economic collapse, under the 0bama era? Or do the taxpayers just bail them out?

Going around the world, bowing before ceremonial heads of state, and deriding America for what he calls "arrogance", "divisiveness", and greed is what 0bama did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
I don't hold any President responsible for economic conditions but it appears that's your sole measure of the person who holds that office. The real estate bubble made me wealthy and I retired briefly under Bush, but he wasn't the cause of my good fortune. There was no other place to put money except real estate after the dotcom bust and I got lucky.

Obama has made mistakes and I think it's becoming more evident that his rhetoric is pure fiction. I didn't vote for him and I wouldn't if given a second chance. But there's no way in hell that he's worse than his predecessor. He's a puppet, that's true, just like so many of them. But I daresay no one on the right side of the ideological spectrum would be doing any better if they had the job right now.
Worse then his predecessor, how? 0bama is causing a lot of the "economic conditions" you say presidents are not responsible for.

0bama, because of his rhetoric threats, and his actions, is causing businesses and investors to hunker down and get small, hoping they will not be ruined when 0bama follows thru on his threats to raise taxes on them, regulate salaries, allows the EPA to start regulating CO2, signs his global Warming bills, or his version of a cap and trade program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
Those "lazy butts, losers and welfare bums" are just as much to blame as those who accomplished a lot for themselves, like you and I apparently. The right always disparages the poor and oppressed but doesn't quite get how foolish that sounds when they cry about being victims themselves and when they too look for someone to blame...like Obama.

As the Bush administration wore on, it became apparent to me that it was a waste to blame Bush. Likewise with Obama. It's time for America to look in the mirror. The problem is staring back at you. Stop being a victim, stop looking for and identifying your perpetrator. Think differently if you want to solve this dilemma.
A president can negatively impact the nation's economy and mood if he antithetical to the nations problems, and continuously engages in runaway deficit spending and keeps them second guessing what new ruinous laws and regulations he will threaten to sign next.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 10:45 AM
 
17,557 posts, read 6,899,777 times
Reputation: 4034
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime View Post
Katrina should have been avoided had he (Bush) had not diverted the funds in the first place.
How was Bush supposed to cause a hurricane to avoid hitting the US coast, and what funds did he divert???

Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime View Post
Thousands of lives were lost while that bumbling j.a peered from AF 1 half azzed concerned. When american lives are at stake and he found it more important to help the citizens of another country, yes I have a probelm. The military has mobile medical units that should have been deployed immediately but were not...why was that? There is no comparision, unless you feel that 11 lives are equal to over 1000.
A nonsensical rant, at best, off-kiltered crazy would be a kind description also.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 10:58 AM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,169 posts, read 4,942,156 times
Reputation: 3373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
How was Bush supposed to cause a hurricane to avoid hitting the US coast, and what funds did he divert???


Is Bush to Blame for New Orleans Flooding?
September 2, 2005
He did slash funding for levee projects. But the Army Corps of Engineers says Katrina was just too strong.
Summary

[SIZE=3]Some critics are suggesting President Bush was as least partly responsible for the flooding in New Orleans. In a widely quoted opinion piece, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal says that "the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature," and cites years of reduced funding for federal flood-control projects around New Orleans.[/SIZE] [SIZE=3]Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for projects specifically designed to strengthen levees. Indeed, local officials had been complaining about that for years.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]It is not so clear whether the money Bush cut from levee projects would have made any difference, however, and we're not in a position to judge that. The Army Corps of Engineers – which is under the President's command and has its own reputation to defend – insists that Katrina was just too strong, and that even if the levee project had been completed it was only designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane.[/SIZE]

Analysis
[SIZE=3]We suspect this subject will get much more attention in Congress and elsewhere in the coming months. Without blaming or absolving Bush, here are the key facts we've been able to establish so far:[/SIZE] [CENTER][SIZE=4]Bush Cut Funding[/SIZE][/CENTER]
[SIZE=3]Blumenthal's much-quoted article in salon.com carried the headline: "No one can say they didn't see it coming." And it said the Bush administration cut flood-control funding "to pay for the Iraq war."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]He continues:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Blumenthal: With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico . But the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]…By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year…forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]We can confirm that funding was cut. The project most closely associated with preventing flooding in New Orleans was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Hurricane Protection Project, which was “designed to protect residents between Lake Pontchartrain and the Missisippi River levee from surges in Lake Pontchartrain,” according to a[/SIZE][SIZE=3] fact sheet [/SIZE][SIZE=3]from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (The fact sheet is dated May 23, long before Katrina). The multi-decade project involved building new levees, enlarging existing levees, and updating other protections like floodwalls. It was scheduled to be completed in 2015.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Over at least the past several budget cycles, the Corps has received substantially less money than it requested for the Lake Pontchartrain project, even though Congress restored much of the money the President cut from the amount the Corps requested.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]In fiscal year 2004, the Corps requested $11 million for the project. The President’s budget allocated $3 million, and Congress furnished $5.5 million. Similarly, in fiscal 2005 the Corps requested $22.5 million, which the President cut to $3.9 million in his budget. Congress increased that to $5.5 million. “This was insufficient to fund new construction contracts,” according to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ project fact sheet. The Corps reported that “seven new contracts are being delayed due to lack funds” [sic].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The President proposed $3 million for the project in the budget for fiscal 2006, which begins Oct. 1. “This will be insufficient to fund new construction projects,” the fact sheet stated. It says the Corps “could spend $20 million if funds were provided.” The Corps of Engineers goes on to say:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Army Corps of Engineers, May 23: In Orleans Parish, two major pump stations are threatened by hurricane storm surges. Major contracts need to be awarded to provide fronting protection for them. Also, several levees have settled and need to be raised to provide the design protection. The current funding shortfalls in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will prevent the Corps from addressing these pressing needs.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The Corps has seen cutbacks beyond those affecting just the Lake Pontchartrain project. The Corps oversees SELA, or the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control project, which Congress authorized after six people died from flooding in May 1995. The Times-Picayune newspaper of New Orleans reported that, overall, the Corps had spent $430 million on flood control and hurricane prevention, with local governments offering more than $50 million toward the project. Nonetheless, "at least $250 million in crucial projects remained," the newspaper said. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]In the past five years, the amount of money spent on all Corps construction projects in the New Orleans district has declined by 44 percent, according to the New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper, from $147 million in 2001 to $82 million in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.[/SIZE]
[CENTER][SIZE=4]A Long History of Complaints[/SIZE][/CENTER]
[SIZE=3]Local officials had long complained that funding for hurricane protection projects was inadequate:[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=3]October 13, 2001: The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that “federal officials are postponing new projects of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Program, or SELA, fearing that federal budget constraints and the cost of the war on terrorism may create a financial pinch for the program.” The paper went on to report that “President Bush’s budget proposed $52 million” for SELA in the 2002 fiscal year. The House approved $57 million and the Senate approved $62 million. Still, “the $62 million would be well below the $80 million that corps officials estimate is needed to pay for the next 12 months of construction, as well as design expenses for future projects.”[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=3]April 24, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that “less money is available to the Army Corps of Engineers to build levees and water projects in the Missisippi River valley this year and next year.” Meanwhile, an engineer who had direct the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study – a study of how to restore coastal wetlands areas in order to provide a bugger from hurricane storm surges – was sent to Iraq "to oversee the restoration of the ‘Garden of Eden’ wetlands at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers,” for which President Bush’s 2005 gave $100 million.[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=3]June 8, 2004: Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, told the Times-Picayune:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Walter Maestri: It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq , and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=3]September 22, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that a pilot study on raising the height of the levees surrounding New Orleans had been completed and generated enough information for a second study necessary to estimate the cost of doing so. The Bush administration “ordered the New Orleans district office” of the Army Corps of Engineers “not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money.”[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=3]June 6, 2005: The New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper reported that the New Orleans district of the Corps was preparing for a $71.2 million reduction in overall funding for the fiscal year beginning in October. That would have been the largest single-year funding loss ever. They noted that money “was so tight" that "the New Orleans district, which employs 1,300 people, instituted a hiring freeze last month on all positions,” which was “the first of its kind in about 10 years.”[/SIZE]
[CENTER][SIZE=4]Would Increased Funding Have Prevented Flooding?[/SIZE][/CENTER]
[SIZE=3]Blumenthal implies that increased funding might have helped to prevent the catastrophic flooding that New Orleans now faces. The White House denies that, and the Corps of Engineers says that even the levee project they were working to complete was not designed to withstand a storm of Katrina's force.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, at a press briefing on September 1, dismissed the idea that the President inadequately funded flood control projects in New Orleans :[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]McClellan: Flood control has been a priority of this administration from day one. We have dedicated an additional $300 million over the last few years for flood control in New Orleans and the surrounding area. And if you look at the overall funding levels for the Army Corps of Engineers, they have been slightly above $4.5 billion that has been signed by the President.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Q: Local people were asking for more money over the last couple of years. They were quoted in local papers in 2003 and 2004, are saying that they were told by federal officials there wasn't enough money because it was going to Iraq expenditures.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]McClellan: You might want to talk to General Strock, who is the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, because I think he's talked to some reporters already and talked about some of these issues. I think some people maybe have tried to make a suggestion or imply that certain funding would have prevented the flooding from happening, and he has essentially said there's been nothing to suggest that whatsoever, and it's been more of a design issue with the levees.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]We asked the Corps about that “design issue.” David Hewitt, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, said McClellan was referring to the fact that “the levees were designed for a category 3 hurricane.” He told us that, consequently, “when it became apparent that this was a category 5 hurricane, an evacuation of the city was ordered.” (A category 3 storm has sustained winds of no more than 130 miles per hour, while a category 5 storm has winds exceeding 155 miles per hour. Katrina had winds of 160 mph as it approached shore, but later weakened to winds of 140 mph as it made landfall, making it a strong category 4 storm, according to the National Hurricane Center.)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The levee upgrade project around Lake Pontchartrain was only 60 to 90 percent complete across most areas of New Orleans as of the end of May, according to the Corps' May 23 fact sheet. Still, even if it had been completed, the project's goal was protecting New Orleans from storm surges up to "a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane,” according to the fact sheet.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]We don't know whether the levees would have done better had the work been completed. But the Corps says that even a completed levee project wasn't designed for the storm that actually occurred.[/SIZE]
[CENTER][SIZE=4]Nobody Anticipated Breach of the Levees?[/SIZE][/CENTER]
[SIZE=3]In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on September 1, President Bush said:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Bush: I don’t think anyone anticipated breach of the levees …Now we’re having to deal with it, and will.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Bush is technically correct that a "breach" wasn't anticipated by the Corps, but that's doesn't mean the flooding wasn't forseen. It was. But the Corps thought it would happen differently, from water washing over the levees, rather than cutting wide breaks in them.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Greg Breerword, a deputy district engineer for project management with the Army Corps of Engineers, told the New York Times:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Breerword: We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped. We never did think they would actually be breached.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]And while Bush is also technically correct that the Corps did not "anticipate" a breach – in the sense that they believed it was a likely event – at least some in the Corps thought a breach was a possibility worth examining.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]According to the Times-Picayune, early in Bush's first term FEMA director Joe Allbaugh ordered a sophisticated computer simulation of what would happen if a category 5 storm hit New Orleans. Joseph Suhayda, an engineer at Louisana State University who worked on the project, described to the newspaper in 2002 what the simulation showed could happen:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Subhayda: Another scenario is that some part of the levee would fail. It's not something that's expected. But erosion occurs, and as levees broke, the break will get wider and wider. The water will flow through the city and stop only when it reaches the next higher thing. The most continuous barrier is the south levee, along the river. That's 25 feet high, so you'll see the water pile up on the river levee.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Whether or not a "breach" was "anticipated," the fact is that many individuals have been warning for decades about the threat of flooding that a hurricane could pose to a set below sea level and sandwiched between major waterways. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report from before September 11, 2001 detailed the three most likely catastrophic disasters that could happen in the United States: a terrorist attack in New York, a strong earthquake in San Francisco, and a hurricane strike in New Orleans. In 2002, New Orleans officials held the simulation of what would happen in a category 5 storm. Walter Maestri, the emergency coordinator of Jefferson Parish in New Orleans , recounted the outcome to PBS’ NOW With Bill Moyers:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Maestri, September 2002: Well, when the exercise was completed it was evidence that we were going to lose a lot of people. We changed the name of the [simulated] storm from Delaney to K-Y-A-G-B... kiss your ass goodbye... because anybody who was here as that category five storm came across... was gone.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]- by Matthew Barge[/SIZE]

A nonsensical rant, at best, off-kiltered crazy would be a kind description also.
Apparently you have no knowledge of the militarys mission regarding disasters on american soil, so I guess this would be a rant to you

I apologize for the length but I hope that you got the msg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 11:04 AM
 
17,557 posts, read 6,899,777 times
Reputation: 4034
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime View Post
Apparently you have no knowledge of the militarys mission regarding disasters on american soil, so I guess this would be a rant to you

I apologize for the length but I hope that you got the msg
Can you clean it up? You have me quoted as if I had posted all that cut and paste crap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 11:50 AM
 
17,557 posts, read 6,899,777 times
Reputation: 4034
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime View Post
Apparently you have no knowledge of the militarys mission regarding disasters on american soil, so I guess this would be a rant to you

I apologize for the length but I hope that you got the msg
I guess you can't clean up this goofy post of yours, so here goes a response.

The levees are the responsibility of the state, they have been getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government, its up to them to spend it wisely, and NOT fixing the levees, leaving them so they could withstand no better then a Cat 3 hurricane was appallingly incompetent of them.

One example was an energy bill signed by bush in 2003. $227 million in taxpayer-financing for "green" bonds to build or renovate four shopping malls, including a riverfront development in Shreveport, La., featuring a 14-screen theater and a Hooter's restaurant.

To quote Sen. McCain in 2003:

Quote:
There are also four proposals known as green bonds that will cost taxpayers $227 million to finance approximately $2 billion in private bonds. One of my favorite green bond proposals is a $150 million riverfront area in Shreveport, LA. This riverwalk has about 50 stores, a movie theater, and a bowling alley. One of the new tenants in this Louisiana riverwalk is a Hooters restaurant. Yes, my friends, an Energy bill subsidizing Hooters and polluters, probably giving new meaning to the phrase ``budget busters.'' Although I am sure there is a great deal of energy expended at Hooters, I have never been present. Perhaps something has been missing in my life.
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde..._id=&Issue_id=

Another appropriations bill in 2003 included $26 million for the New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street Streetcar Project, $10 million for Louisiana Public Transit, and millions of dollars more for other these projects and other unnecessary projects, year after year.

You can cry and whine about Bush all you want, but lawmakers in Louisiana were less concerned with the safety of its people, because they spent hundreds of million on other projects, NOT the levees. They were in wasting money on frivolous adventures and buying votes for their reelections instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2010, 01:11 PM
 
Location: a nation in decline
10,231 posts, read 10,431,622 times
Reputation: 3880
All states do this - embark on projects they don't need "because its free federal money." This is what we elected our represenatives and senators to do? Pass out "free money"? Is there no sanity in D.C.? No wonder there's never enough money and resources when a real disaster occurs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2010, 04:04 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,169 posts, read 4,942,156 times
Reputation: 3373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Can you clean it up? You have me quoted as if I had posted all that cut and paste crap.
Please read and understand, "it should not matter how the truth is presented as long as it is there" - unknown
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2010, 04:07 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,169 posts, read 4,942,156 times
Reputation: 3373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
I guess you can't clean up this goofy post of yours, so here goes a response.

The levees are the responsibility of the state, they have been getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government, its up to them to spend it wisely, and NOT fixing the levees, leaving them so they could withstand no better then a Cat 3 hurricane was appallingly incompetent of them.

One example was an energy bill signed by bush in 2003. $227 million in taxpayer-financing for "green" bonds to build or renovate four shopping malls, including a riverfront development in Shreveport, La., featuring a 14-screen theater and a Hooter's restaurant.

To quote Sen. McCain in 2003:

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde..._id=&Issue_id=

Another appropriations bill in 2003 included $26 million for the New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street Streetcar Project, $10 million for Louisiana Public Transit, and millions of dollars more for other these projects and other unnecessary projects, year after year.

You can cry and whine about Bush all you want, but lawmakers in Louisiana were less concerned with the safety of its people, because they spent hundreds of million on other projects, NOT the levees. They were in wasting money on frivolous adventures and buying votes for their reelections instead.
You still have not addressed the lack of military intervention which was diverted to IRAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top