Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Actually, when a disaster cripples an entire coastline, incapacitating multiple states and cities, the federal government steps in. It always does. It declares a state of emergency and funnels resources to fix it. I'd have a lot more respect for a president who willingly crossed the lines of protocol because people were dying and dealt with the political backlash later than one who pulled arbitrary federal-state excusues later, having appointed a college buddy whose best expertise in emergency management was being the head of a horse association.
That's criminally negligent behavior and Bush, who sat on vacation for days while people drown, holds the blood of more than a thousand people on his hands.
It is up to the states, the Mayor & governor of Louisiana made big mistakes.
Pres. Bush offered to send in aid 24 hours before Katrina made landfall. It was refused.
Even so, the response to hurricane Katrina was the largest- and fastest- rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene with 3 days of the storm's landfall.
Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day, some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people and 4,000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.
Quote:
Well, yes, it was a rigged "election". But that didn't have much to do with Bush himself. People gave Bush a chance to make the criminal behavior associated with his brother and the court worthwhile. He never did.
A fantasy that some left-wingers actually believe! Why didn't Bush "rig" the 2006 election so that Republicans could retain control of Congress?
Quote:
Considering the economy's on the rise and bridges have been built with former adversaries and the Iraq war is winding down while the war on terror is ramping up again (the one Bush lost focus on), I'd say an objective observer would be hard-pressed to identify any major mis-steps to date.
You really think that Obama hasn't made any major missteps?
Quote:
Professional historians from across the political spectrum were surveyed and Bush was ranked, if I recall, 36 out of 43.
Probably 80% of them "across the political spectrum" are leftists.
Yea, how does that make the future look brighter and more productive instead of more debt burdened and closer to collapse?
Jobs are created and saved by demand. Pulling money out of future and low-velocity streams and putting into current high-velocity streams increases demand. The first step in recovery is to slow the rate at which you are becoming more and more sick. Then comes not getting more and more sick at all. Then comes starting to get better, then comes getting better faster and faster. First and second derivatives, eh? The quicker you can manage to pull yourself through this cycle, the shallower the bottom will be and the easier and cheaper it will be to climb out of the hole. Does that answer your question?
It is up to the states, the Mayor & governor of Louisiana made big mistakes.
Pres. Bush offered to send in aid 24 hours before Katrina made landfall. It was refused.
Even so, the response to hurricane Katrina was the largest- and fastest- rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene with 3 days of the storm's landfall.
Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day, some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people and 4,000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.
Please see Saganista's post #159 for further clarification of your misunderstandings.
Quote:
A fantasy that some left-wingers actually believe! Why didn't Bush "rig" the 2006 election so that Republicans could retain control of Congress?
I'm not a left-winger, as much as you'd like to think everyone who thinks you're mistaken is on the opposite political spectrum. By your logic, because one election is rigged and another isn't, then neither one could possibly be? Come on, Fleet. I know you're rooting for your home team here, but your guy stepped out before he crossed into the endzone! Rules are rules, and when it came down to the court ruling it was all politics. Rigged. We won't even get into 2004...
Quote:
You really think that Obama hasn't made any major missteps?
Can't think of anything major. A few missteps on appointees with tax problems and such, but that's just life in the real world.
Quote:
Probably 80% of them "across the political spectrum" are leftists.
Please provide evidence to support your claim. Historians are not a liberal bunch by nature.
okay. Enough of this. I just realized this is all off topic. Back to the economy Obama has saved!
Jobs are created and saved by demand. Pulling money out of future and low-velocity streams and putting into current high-velocity streams increases demand. The first step in recovery is to slow the rate at which you are becoming more and more sick. Then comes not getting more and more sick at all. Then comes starting to get better, then comes getting better faster and faster. First and second derivatives, eh? The quicker you can manage to pull yourself through this cycle, the shallower the bottom will be and the easier and cheaper it will be to climb out of the hole. Does that answer your question?
It still sounds like inflating another bubble to me. It's the the good ole' vicious cycle at play.
But many who considered the economy "poor" were saying it even in 2003 and 2004. And 2004 was when we had the huge jump in GDP (over 7% for one quarter in 2004, the highest GDP growth since over 8% in 1984).
You just make this stuff up out of thin air, don't you...
GDP Growth in the Four Quarters of CY2004...
2.8 -- 2.9 -- 3.0 -- 3.5
Here are the comparable figures for CY1978 under Jimmy Carter...
1.4 -- 16.7 -- 4.0 -- 5.4
Carter wins in a blowout. And no, the 16.7 is not a typo.
Please see Saganista's post #159 for further clarification of your misunderstandings.
It seems that you and Sag have the misunderstanding. I posted facts. The response to Hurricane Katrina by the National Guard and Coast Guard took no longer than it did for Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Again, Bush offered to send in aid 24 hours before Katrina made landfall. I think you should reread the facts I posted about the response to Katrina. Even better, accept them!
Quote:
I'm not a left-winger, as much as you'd like to think everyone who thinks you're mistaken is on the opposite political spectrum. By your logic, because one election is rigged and another isn't, then neither one could possibly be? Come on, Fleet. I know you're rooting for your home team here, but your guy stepped out before he crossed into the endzone! Rules are rules, and when it came down to the court ruling it was all politics. Rigged. We won't even get into 2004...
By your posts, you sure sound like a left-winger! Back up your claim that the 2000 (and 2004) election was "rigged." And tell me why Bush didn't "rig" the 2006 election so the Republicans could retain control of Congress.
Quote:
Please provide evidence to support your claim. Historians are not a liberal bunch by nature.
Could you give me a breakdown of that? The ratio of liberal and non-liberal historians who rate presidents?
Actually the improvement in GDP was mostly due to increased consumer spending.
Yes, touching 71% of GDP now, but that's in 2009-III. The point was to respond in general to <chango>'s "challenge" to point out how taking on debt could improve prospects for the future.
Jobs are created and saved by demand. Pulling money out of future and low-velocity streams and putting into current high-velocity streams increases demand. The first step in recovery is to slow the rate at which you are becoming more and more sick. Then comes not getting more and more sick at all. Then comes starting to get better, then comes getting better faster and faster. First and second derivatives, eh? The quicker you can manage to pull yourself through this cycle, the shallower the bottom will be and the easier and cheaper it will be to climb out of the hole. Does that answer your question?
There's one problem with your explanation or theory. It sounds like it would work if the bailout and stimulus money went to the PEOPLE. All this did was let rich people get their final grabs out of the cookie jar before everything started to fold again. This money never made it to the people or more importantly, small businesses which employ most Americans.
The market iis a bunch of paarasites sucking blood from the economy. It can be a negative factor but it isn't a positive one
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
