Friday, September 16, 2005
200 Billion
The President announced that the government will be spending 200 billion of our tax dollars on rebuilding New Orleans. I won't mention that he's already spent that amount in Iraq, or that the deficit at the end of this quarter will be 333 billion dollars. It's not important that 84% of the displaced say they will not return to the city. Let's forget about the fact that it's not the best place for a city to begin with. There is more than enough money in the private sector to rebuild New Orleans, and I'm sure plenty of motivation goes along with it. Why should my tax dollars pay for it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I love his list of the other things that are losing money because of this...you know, the less important things like education and prescriptions for our seniors...
I too, am a bit disillusioned with all this spending, perhaps for different reasons. I agree that building on the current site is BEGGING for trouble. All we need is another Kat-5 storm to come through, and we are back to square one. I think the amount of spending in the Bush administration is no different than in the Clinton administration, always going up, up, up. What I do not do is lump this spending plan with Iraq...there is no comparison or similarity. It just is a means to pile on the frustration.
Iraq is a different matter. What we don't see, as tax payers, is the tremendous benefit and good we have accomplished in Iraq to justify the spending. I have only the liberal media and liberals in our government to blame. This constant drum-beat of failure is WAY out of balance to what I think is really happening over there...all for the purpose of destroying George Bush. To think, that our nation is suffering from constipation of information simply because of political ambitions. Give no more credibility to the liberal media; that's what I say!
Well, once again we can see that there are some folks who don't mind spending billions and killing innocent people for oil, but when it comes to helping others in this country --- well the spending is just too much.
I guess I shouldn't complain, after all, neither black folks or their opinions seem to matter in this country, the land of the free and greedy. That is, unless the Bush Mafia want a photo op!
I would rather my tax dollars be spent to help the folks of New Orleans, but instead it will be used to enrich the haves and have more. In the end, very little will go to the poor. Such is life!
PC - I'd have to disagree with you here. If our President didn't have such a spending problem, $200 billion for New Orleans wouldn't be so bad.
But excellent point about the $333 billion spend in Iraq already.
I was talking to my cousin's hubby last night about this. Bush never ran a successful business in his life. The guy has no real skill to be president and it shows when it comes to budgets.
So, I totally see what you're getting at though. $200 billion now is a big deal, because he spent so much money elsewhere. However, New Orleans is one of America's greatest cities. It's the birthplace of jazz, a cultural mecca, and one of the only three places in the country where people really party (the other being Key West and San Francisco). I want to see it rebuilt.
David Broder had an excellent article on Bush's spending last Sunday. It was truely frightening.
UL - The difference between bush and Clinton is Clinton had it to spend (we were in the black during the Clinton years, remember?).
And WHAT are these wonderful things we are doing in Iraq? By virtually any measure, the Iraqi's are far worse off than when we got there! And things are only going to get worse, with the country being on the brink of civil war. Send me some of that stuff you're smokin!
LP - sadly, you are right! New Orleans will be rebuilt for the well to do and wealthy on the backs of the working poor, thanks to Bush's decision to suspend the Davis-Bacon wage act in the storm areas. The work is being given to Bush's corporate benefactors, Haliburton and Becthel, on a no bid basis. Virtually none of this work will go to local contractors. Those who were bussed off to far away places will never return. Those with families will put down roots where there kids can go to school this year. Others will find decent jobs they won't be able to leave, and those who don't won't have the means to get back. it's a $200 Billion party for the Bush's benefactors, being paid for by us, our children, and our grandchildren!
GWB: Are you trying to convince me that NOTHING good had happened or is happening in Iraq? Is that what you think? You have been sucking at the teats of the NY Times for too long, my friend. Time to wean yourself and eat some solid food!
I'm sure many of you who visit Polanco's blogsite support our troops and would give the benefit of the doubt to our brave men and women who give stirring testimonials about the tremendous relief and good they have accomplished in our name. Or, is your "support" for them just a ruse, thinking that they lie just like their Fascist boss, Bushitler?
As to what I'm smoking, Bear, I have a very clear mind with all this clean Wisconsin air. I invite you to come up here for yourself. I promise, no one will force you to wear a cheesehead!
You, my Indiana pal, are acting like you need to change your media diet. Pinchy Solzberg serves up bowls of hot, steaming liberal bulls**t, and you swallow it, begging for more. You got some great search engines, use them!
Next, I'm wondering when some liberal Mathmatics major will do a Master's dissertation on how George W. Bush's name adds up to the dreaded "666!" Or, maybe, Bush is really next in line to be the leader of Anton LeVey's Church of Satan. All this Christian stuff is one,giant smoke-screen to cover his diabolical plan to ruin the world.
Liquid,
That's one of the main reason I'm opposed to it. People want to claim there isn't racism, but all they have to do is trace where this money goes.
Zombie,
I wouldn't agree with it even if we weren't spending so much money in Iraq. None of this money is going to go towards anything but corporations. The rich will get more money but the poor will struggle. I don't want my tax dollars to help rebuild Trent Lott's house.
Undreground,
First, please do not suggest that because out positions are liberal we are not well read. The New York Times is just the beginning of most of our reading material, and any intelligent person knows that it's best to read from all points of view in order to come to an informed decision.
We have not done anything good in Iraq. Can you really trust the testimonials of people who are struggling to believe they're doing something worthwhile so as not to face the true reality of war? Maybe some of the troops believe the propaganda, and the others are just not well informed. I have some friends there, and many of them say that things are not going well, the Iraqis cannot govern themselves, and the women are much worse off than they were.
Bush Says Spending Cuts Will Be Needed
Tax Increase Not Part Of His Gulf Relief Plan
By Michael A. Fletcher and Jonathan Weisman / Washington Post
One day after pledging to undertake one of history's largest reconstruction efforts, President Bush served notice yesterday that rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast will require spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.
Amid growing concern among congressional Republicans about the huge cost of the planned reconstruction effort, Bush said the federal government can foot the bill without resorting to a tax increase. "You bet it's going to cost money. But I'm confident we can handle it," Bush said. "It's going to mean that we're going to have to cut unnecessary spending."
Bush has refused to put a price tag on the reconstruction plan, which he outlined in a prime-time speech Thursday night, although members of Congress and others have predicted that it could cost as much as $200 billion. The plan was assembled by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Claude Allen, Bush's top domestic policy adviser.
Speaking at a prayer service earlier in the day as part of a national day of remembrance for the hurricane's victims, Bush vowed to rebuild the Gulf Coast with the goal of wiping out the legacy of racial discrimination and social inequality that has compounded poverty there.
"As we clear away the debris of a hurricane, let us also clear away the legacy of inequality," he said.
His blueprint envisions the federal government paying much of the cost for the reconstruction of roads, bridges, schools and other infrastructure wiped out by Katrina. It also calls for an unprecedented effort to attack poverty in the region, through a combination of tax breaks for small and minority businesses, individual grants for job training and day care and other needs, and an initiative to give federal land or abandoned homes to poor people for home construction and renovation.
The deadly storm and the federal government's slow response has damaged Bush's standing as a leader among voters, polls show, and his approval rating has hit all-time lows. The president has faced particular anger from African Americans, a majority of whom believe the government's response to the storm would have been faster were most of the victims not poor and black.
Although the plan promises to be huge in scale, many details about how it will be managed and carried out are still being determined. Bush's rebuilding promise has created new political pressures amid concerns that in the absence of tax increases, the huge expenditure will lead to larger budgets, at least in the short term. Members of his own party are publicly stating strong concerns about the money being allocated.
A half-dozen House and Senate Republicans have drafted legislation to keep a close eye on Katrina expenditures, and several have called for significant spending cuts to pay for the relief.
"There's no shortage of places where the federal government can tighten its belt to pay the cost of the hurricane recovery effort," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). "Let's face it, after years of uninterrupted growth, the federal government is bloated."
Other Republicans have contradicted that assertion, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who has said there is no appreciable fat in the federal budget.
Bush pledged to find some spending cuts. But he offered no specifics, and his chief economic aide, Allan B. Hubbard, dismissed the rebuilding effort's impact on the longer-term effort to reduce the budget deficit. "This in no way will adversely impact his commitment to cut the deficit in half by 2009," he said.
An administration official said the White House and Congress will look for specific spending cuts, starting with about $20 billion in savings identified in the president's 2006 budget. Still more could come from changes to entitlement programs to slow their growth. Those proposals have already been examined by Congress and rejected.
Also, some of those cuts would hit precisely the programs the lawmakers want to expand. Among the programs slated by Bush for cuts were Medicaid, which he now wants to extend to evacuees, and the Army Corps of Engineers, which is faced with the huge burden of repairing levees and dredging waterways wrecked in the storm.
White House aides confirmed that Rove, in his capacity as deputy chief of staff, is helping to lead the Katrina recovery effort. With Rove's name a rallying point for Bush foes, especially after revelations of his role in the unmasking of a CIA operative, Democrats sought to denigrate his involvement.
"Mr. Rove may be an expert on leaks, but that doesn't qualify him to oversee flood relief," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
The administration's first report to Congress on Katrina spending -- delivered late Thursday night -- provided some window into the scale of the recovery effort but raised sharp questions on Capitol Hill. Congress has allocated more than $60 billion for hurricane relief, driven in large part by urgent White House requests for large, open-ended allocations.
But some congressional appropriations aides said the money is not being spent as quickly as they had expected. So far, about $9.8 billion has been allocated to Federal Emergency Management Agency relief contracts and federal projects. An additional $4 billion is tied up in contracts that have not been formalized.
That leaves more than $46 billion in unobligated funds, the documents indicate. Congressional aides said that figure is likely to persuade lawmakers to rein in their open-wallet approach to Katrina spending, at least until the administration provides a more detailed accounting of where the money is going.
"We need specific information to ensure accountability," said Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.
A White House official said he was anticipating concern that expenditures appear to be slower than expected, but added that some costs have not been recorded because federal agencies have yet to bill FEMA for their services.
What is clear from the report is that the vast majority of federal expenditures will not go toward innovative economic development programs, such as the ones laid out by Bush on Thursday night, but to more old-fashioned government programs: dredging of shipping lanes, building highways and bridges, cash assistance for the dislocated and home-building.
Some of those initiatives proposed by Bush have been discussed among conservative policy researchers for years as a way to help people escape poverty by offering them flexibility in seeking services and a chance at home ownership.
"If there is a silver lining in this tragedy it is that it is creating an atmosphere to try new approaches to ending long-term poverty," said Douglas J. Besharov, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, who talked to White House officials about elements of their plan. "There are a lot of us who think that one of the problems is that anti-poverty programs have been more responsive to the people who run them than the people they are supposed to serve."
Before Bush addressed the day of prayer service at Washington National Cathedral, Bishop T.D. Jakes, head of 30,000-member Potter's House church in Dallas, delivered a sermon calling on Americans to no longer ignore the plight of the poor. "We can no longer be a nation that overlooks the poor and the suffering, that continues past the ghetto on our way to the Mardi Gras," he said.
In Maryland, more than 100 people gathered inside the State House in Annapolis for a morning program that included prayers from three faiths and a song by Marina Harrison, Miss Maryland USA. "God expects us to help those in need," Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) told the crowd.
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, head of the Washington Archdiocese, and Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington each celebrated mid-day Mass in their respective dioceses for the hurricane victims. And the weekly Friday services at All Dulles Area Muslim Society in Sterling included prayers for victims and the collection of food and donations for the relief efforts.
A displaced family from the Gulf Coast was among the nearly 100 people who attended Loverde's Mass at the Cathedral of St. Thomas More in Arlington.
UL, you must be best buds with George Sr. Every time there is any criticism of him or Jr., it's always blame "liberal media" and the NY Times. It's laughable. Do you guys get your marching orders with breakfast? For once, be original. Is any criticism of a president considered liberal? Is telling the truth considered liberal? Would you have people ignore the fact that 2000 Americans have died in Iraq ... not to mention vast numbers of Iraqis? Is it liberal to state that Iraq is on the verge of civil war? Is it liberal to say that we've created a center for terrorism where one didn't exist before? If so, guilty as charged.
If you Righties are using your "search engine", why is it that you always serve up the same talking points?
PC - I wouldn't agree with it even if we weren't spending so much money in Iraq. None of this money is going to go towards anything but corporations. The rich will get more money but the poor will struggle. I don't want my tax dollars to help rebuild Trent Lott's house.
Good point. I guess I was being idealistic. :(
It will probably be like when an airline gets close to going under and begs the gov't for corporate welfare. The gov't gives 'em X amount of money, and it all goes to the execs and the execs still lay off a thousand workers.
dbackdad:
Hey, pal, don't knock golfing with the old man until you try it. He pays for EVERYTHING! And yes, I'm a mindless twit, I can't think for myself so I need them to tell me how to think. Great call. Just call me "Sammy Mnemonic." *LOL*
When there is unjust criticism of GWB, whether it be George W. Bush or the Great White Bear, I'm going to be in the man's corner. Talk about talking points, you LIBERALS don't have ANY substance when it comes to defending your groundless criticisms of Iraq. How many KIA's did you expect with the war on terror? When terrorists blow up their own people, or U.S. soldiers, how does your logic make that fair badly for Bush? What does their mayhem reveal about these maniacal killers? Doesn't it show how terrible an ideology THEY have? Doesn't that convince you more that the job we're doing needs to be completed? What a wussie ideology liberals have. Your thinking is so skewed, I'm sure this is going to be an exercise in futility.
DBD, just because I defend Bush on Iraq doesn't mean I think all criticism is liberal. You're going to have to quit arguing like girly-man and pump up your arguing muscles.
Editorial comment from the UL:
Man, I sounded awfully highminded there! Sorry about that, dbackdad.
Zombie,
That's called corporate welfare. Much more money goes into that than the social welfare system.
Underground,
Define liberal.
dbackdad, Define "rightie."
A rightie is someone who is to the right of the center on Constitutional issues and interpretation.
DEFINE LIBERAL.
Thank you, clearheaded! Good job!
UL
We are replacing a represive secular government, where women had the same rights as western women, with a more oppresive Islamic one. Iraqi's are being killed at the rate or a couple of thousand a month, and the infrastructure is actually deteriorating. Now tell me again about all the good we're doing.
TOTAL NUMBER OF COALITION TROOPS KILLED
Pre-war March 2003: 0
Handover June 2004: 982
Now: 1,930
Analysis: Number of US troops killed increased sharply during Fallujah fighting in April and November 2004.
IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED
Pre-war March 2003: n/a
Handover June 2004: 10,000
Now: 60,800 (includes 23,000 crime-related deaths)
Analysis: Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths have varied widely because the US military does not count them.
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (megwatts generated)
Pre-war March 2003: 3,958
Handover June 2004: 4,293
Now: 4,035
Analysis: Coalition is way behind its goal of providing 6,000 megawatts by July 2004. Most Iraqis do not have a reliable electricity supply.
UNEMPLOYED
Pre-war March 2003: n/a
Handover June 2004: 40%
Now: 40%
Analysis: More than a third of young people are unemployed, a cause for social unrest. Many security men stay home, except on payday.
TELEPHONES
Pre-war March 2003: 833,000 (landlines only)
Handover June 2004: 1.2m (includes mobiles)
Now: 3.1m
Analysis: Landlines are extremely unreliable and mobile phone system could be improved.
PRIMARY SCHOOL ACCESS
Pre-war March 2003: 3.6m
Handover June 2004: 4.3m
Now: n/a
Analysis: 83 per cent of boys and 79 per cent of girls in primary schools. But figures mask declining literacy and failure rate.
OIL PRODUCTION (barrels per day)
Pre-war March 2003: 2.5m
Handover June 2004: 2.29m
Now: 2.20m
Analysis: Sustainability of Iraqi oilfields has been jeopardised to boost output. Oil facilities regularly targeted by insurgents.
These were the figures as of the end of June. None of them has improved, and you can add several thousand new Iraqi dead at the hands of the insurgency.
Worse, the country is on the verge of all out civil war.
And if you want to know whats going on in Iraq, ask a veteran National Guard or Army Reservist, rather than kids who are still naive enough to believe the party line!
Now tell me again about all the good we've done there!
Clear headed,
Did you see the comments? Did you know what they were about? They were bickering, with little insight into the above discussion. I'm sorry it frustrates you. The childishness of those types of posts and the constant bickering frustrate me. As it's my blog, I win.
What people are you referring to when you say people stop at "not limited"? As far as the instution of marraige is concerned, who are you to decide what that entails, who can marry, and what other requirements are involved. If marriage is to encourage procreation, does that mean people who cannot procreate cannot marry? Why does your view (general "your", not individual) take precedence over mine? Who gets to decide what's right? More importantly, why don't we get to vote on how our money is spent if this is a Democracy?
If you wouldn't mind, describe a society that has run amuk.
GWB,
Thank you for all of that information! Knowledge is Power!
Clearheaded,
Please I am copying and pasting your post under the APPROPRIATE POST.
Clearheaded,
I reposted it under the same-sex marriage debate because it discussed families mostly, even though I asked you about an amuk society under the 200 Billion post.
Post a Comment