Wrong again.
I have been saying for years that we need a Marshall Plan for Iraq.


YOu can't decry the security situation and expect an aid plan to have any effect. See somalia.

Ronald Reagan's approval rating remains among the highest of all past presidents. Just goes to show you how fickle the American people can be sometimes.

The government takes everyone's money in taxes, including mine.

One person by themselves cannot do that much.
Therein lies the problem.




Since they were not given the help they need I agree it is no surprise they remain in that state.

Can't pin it on the feds. Over $100 billion is ready and waiting. The locals can't agree on a plan of how to spend it.

Ronald Reagan's approval rating remains among the highest of all past presidents. Just goes to show you how fickle the American people can be sometimes.

I think you misspelled stupid.

I have an idea - why not take the initiative on your own? Nah, let's use the power of government to take someone else's money so you can feel generous, without any real sacrifice on your part.



New Orleans and Louisiana were unholy political messes before Katrina - it's not surprising that they remain in that state.
Claps. Nicely put, Lionel. :)

YOu can't decry the security situation and expect an aid plan to have any effect. See somalia.

Yes, I can, if it is done right.
Security does not mean "war", which is the lie you cons have been pushing.

Can't pin it on the feds. Over $100 billion is ready and waiting. The locals can't agree on a plan of how to spend it.

Can you cite a source for this claim?

Seeing an increase in crime and brutal murders by Herb Mullins, a mental health hospital patient put out on the streets by Reagan,(www.crimelibrary.com (http://www.crimelibrary.com)) type in Herb Mullins to see the the horrible murders he committed), the California legislature passed a law that would stop Reagan from closing even more state-funded mental health hospitals. but Reagan would not be outdone. In 1980, congress proposed new legislation(PL 96-398)called the community health systems act(crafted by Ted Kennedy), but the program was killed by newly-elected President Ronald Reagan. This action ended the federal community mental health centers program and its funding. And by the way the tent city is in Ontario not LA, which is 40 miles away.

Great post afinertouch5!

Yes, I can, if it is done right.

There are no examples.

Security does not mean "war", which is the lie you cons have been pushing.
That's a figment of your imagination. No one has said war means security.

No one has said war means security.

It is the standard con frame for the occupation of Iraq.

McCain is running around the country touting the importance of the "war".

Can you cite a source for this claim?

You should know by now.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/08metropolitanpolicy_liu.aspx

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14009346

In the two years since Hurricane Katrina, the federal government has provided more than $114 billion in aid. But walk the streets of the Gulf Coast, and you might wonder where all that money has gone.

You should know by now.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/08metropolitanpolicy_liu.aspx

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14009346

I do know, which is why I was not surprised when your link did not support your claim.

That was a year and a half ago. Since then, Rosenburg and McCartney — with the help of thousands of volunteers and donations — have rebuilt almost 70 homes in St. Bernard Parish. They are working on two dozen more. Rosenburg says he is glad to help but sad that he has to.

"National Guard should be rebuilding these houses rather than some high school kids from Kansas or a church group from Ottawa," Rosenburg says. "President Bush made a promise. He said we will rebuild and we will rebuild quickly. It's two years later, and the government has done zero rebuilding."

"Two years later, we have yet to start construction or repairs. ... We got into a two-year-long debate with FEMA about how much damage did we have and how much are they going to pay to have the building repaired," says parish Councilman Craig Taffaro.

I do know, which is why I was not surprised when your link did not support your claim.

Still working on that reading comprehension course i see.

You say Since they were not given the help they need I agree it is no surprise they remain in that state.

I say there's over $100 billion ready and waiting.

You ask Can you cite a source for this claim?

I give you the source (NPR) and you say I was not surprised when your link did not support your claim.

It's hiding in plain sight.:@@: :@@:

Uh oh, Waldo - with such a response, I can only imagine that you're dangerously close to being put on Bumfuck's "Ignore" list. Heaven forefend, eh?

Please, Please.

From the NPR article:
Billions of dollars in housing aid have been delayed because Louisiana had difficulty getting what it calls its Road Home program up and running — although that money is now starting to flow. Local officials say other money — for rebuilding things such as schools, hospitals and police stations — has been hung up by excessive red tape.

Billions, not a hundred billion. 2/3 of the $114 billion allocated went to immediate relief. That leaves around $38 billion in unallocated funds. While still a huge sum, it's not "over a hundred million dollars." When will both of you learn how to read? Dharma, that took me all of five minutes to type up and you couldn't even explain it to waldo. It's not enough that he's wrong. Take a little extra time and point out why.

Hahaha... Nice job, Nappie. Only you could manage to make both participants of the argument look like idiots.

While still a huge sum, it's not "over a hundred million dollars." When will both of you learn how to read? Dharma, that took me all of five minutes to type up and you couldn't even explain it to waldo.

I'm wondering where it is you think you have shown that Dharma was wrong about something associated with the ""Over $100 billion is ready and waiting. The locals can't agree on a plan of how to spend it."" claim.............?!?!?

He did not believe the claim; it turned out to be a false claim. Dharma was correct on that point.

He noted that waldo's link did not support his claim. It didn't. Dharma was correct on that point.

Just because Dharma did not formulate (as you did) the sort of fact filled reply that would force an nitwit like waldo to admit how bogus his claim was does not mean that he cannot read.

I say there's over $100 billion ready and waiting.

And then you blamed the local government because it was not being spent and posted a link that said this to try and support your claim.


"We got into a two-year-long debate with FEMA about how much damage did we have and how much are they going to pay to have the building repaired," says parish Councilman Craig Taffaro.

You have an addiction to arguing Waldo.
So much that you don't even make sense half the time anymore. You just argue for the sake of arguing.

I'm wondering where it is you think you have shown that Dharma was wrong about something associated with the ""Over $100 billion is ready and waiting. The locals can't agree on a plan of how to spend it."" claim.............?!?!?

He did not believe the claim; it turned out to be a false claim. Dharma was correct on that point.

He noted that waldo's link did not support his claim. It didn't. Dharma was correct on that point.

Just because Dharma did not formulate (as you did) the sort of fact filled reply that would force an nitwit like waldo to admit how bogus his claim was does not mean that he cannot read.

Gracias.
I am curious about that too.

Just because Dharma did not formulate (as you did) the sort of fact filled reply that would force an nitwit like waldo to admit how bogus his claim was does not mean that he cannot read.
I was attempting to discourage a remarkably common occurrence on the boards. Telling another person he's wrong and not pointing out how or why. The learn to read comment applies to both, waldo more explicitly, and because Dharma failed to elucidate properly on what he read. He left it to someone else to make his argument for him. I had to read the article myself and find out exactly what was going on. That's ridiculous. But it's a frighteningly common behavior on dharma's part. waldo's problem is that he substitutes what he thinks is witty sarcasm for arguments. Grow the hell up, both of you.

Hahahaha.... "witty sarcasm", my ass.

I was attempting to discourage a remarkably common occurrence on the boards. Telling another person he's wrong and not pointing out how or why.

You need to learn to read.

From the NPR article:


Billions, not a hundred billion. 2/3 of the $114 billion allocated went to immediate relief. That leaves around $38 billion in unallocated funds. While still a huge sum, it's not "over a hundred million dollars." When will both of you learn how to read? Dharma, that took me all of five minutes to type up and you couldn't even explain it to waldo. It's not enough that he's wrong. Take a little extra time and point out why.

We'll go thru this again, for your benefit as well.

Drama said, Since they were not given the help they need I agree it is no surprise they remain in that state.

I cite a source that says they've been given over $100 billion.

Are you attempting to argue on his behalf that they have not been given the help they need? $100 billion is no help or insignificant?

Whether some has been spent (and the brookings article indicates only half had been spent at that point) or not is semantics to his assertion. Fact, they've been given over $100 billion from the feds. If you/he want to argue that's not all of it's 'ready and waiting', some of it's already spent, you're right, you got me. :rolleyes:

But to argue on his behalf that sufficient assistance has not been provided is ridiculous.

More
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-10-gulfcoast-funds_N.htm

Lionel said it best...

New Orleans and Louisiana were unholy political messes before Katrina - it's not surprising that they remain in that state.

Doesn't matter how much money is doled out.. they'll still be a city of people who choose to live below sea level and the city WILL flood again.

The Dhrama Queen oughta worry about cleaning up his own state's pigsty, commonly known as Detroit.

I cite a source that says they've been given over $100 billion.


Who has been given that money exactly?

Carnival Cruise line for one. (http://www.douglasksmith.com/2006/03/carnival_puts_profits_first_in.htm)

Big Whoop. How does that help the people trying to rebuild?

Who has been given that money exactly?

Carnival Cruise line for one. (http://www.douglasksmith.com/2006/03/carnival_puts_profits_first_in.htm)

Big Whoop. How does that help the people trying to rebuild?
by housing ppl with nowhere else to go:slap:

by housing ppl with nowhere else to go

A few people, when you take it in context and only for a very brief time and only so long as they met their profit margin. :slap:

A few people, when you take it in context and only for a very brief time and only so long as they met their profit margin. :slap:
temporary housing should be just that-temporary.

temporary housing should be just that-temporary.

And it should last long enough to fulfill the need.

Not just a couple weeks.

Not just a couple weeks.

Couple weeks? We're going on 2.5 years now.

Couple weeks? We're going on 2.5 years now.

Actually, to be specific, FEMA chartered 4 cruise ships (http://www.disastercenter.com/FEMA%20Hurricane%20Katrina%20Response.html#Tempora ry_Housing_for_Hurricane_Katrina) from Carnival cruie lines for six months. After that time, the refugees had to find somewhere else to go and many moved into the FEMA trailers that were just found last year to be toxic (http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2006/07/are_fema_traile.html).

Actually, to be specific, FEMA chartered 4 cruise ships (http://www.disastercenter.com/FEMA%20Hurricane%20Katrina%20Response.html#Tempora ry_Housing_for_Hurricane_Katrina) from Carnival cruie lines for six months. After that time, the refugees had to find somewhere else to go and many moved into the FEMA trailers that were just found last year to be toxic (http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2006/07/are_fema_traile.html).

My memory is niggling at me on this. Didn't those ships wind up being fewer (the cost raised quite a ruckus) and housing relief/emergency/contract workers?

Could be wrong...just don't feel like googling issue. Too depressing for the start of the day.

My memory is niggling at me on this. Didn't those ships wind up being fewer (the cost raised quite a ruckus) and housing relief/emergency/contract workers?


Just about everything that George W. Bush touches has at least one scandal associated with it.

"As recovery on the Gulf Coast morphs into reconstruction, the federal government will be handing out billions of dollars in contracts," Michael Hiltzik wrote in the September 12, 2005, Los Angeles Times.

"Who will reap this bonanza?," he asked. "Not the people employed to remove wreckage, build houses and restore the infrastructure. While Congress was appropriating nearly $52 billion in relief and reconstruction programs last week, Bush quietly suspended the Davis-Bacon Act in the flood region. This law mandates that workers on federal construction projects be paid at least the prevailing local wage. ... The disaster entrepreneurs, meanwhile, are already saddling up."

"Those no-bid, cost-plus contracts already being dealt out to the usual suspects tell you what you need to know about future cost-overruns, klepto-reconstruction activities, and the like which are practically guaranteed to deconstruct the bulk of the Gulf Coast and leave New Orleans, the destroyed parts of Mississippi, and the hundreds of thousands of evacuees, not to speak of Congress, gasping for breath amid a landscape largely sucked dry, not of water, but of cash and sustenance." --Tom Engelhardt and Nick Turse, TomDispatch, September 13, 2005.

The cruise line scandal was actually focused on Jeb and the fact that most of that "housing" went unused but they still got their full pay from FEMA.
This is from a letter Henry Waxman sent to Jeb Bush in regards to this contract with Carnival. (http://katrinacoverage.com/2006/03/01/jeb-bush-involved-in-carnival-cruise-lines.html)

Emails recently provided to Congress by Michael Brown, the former FEMA Director, indicate that you intervened at a key moment to support the efforts of Carnival to win this lucrative federal contract. These emails reveal that you forwarded to Mr. Brown on August 31 an email from Ric Cooper about the Carnival proposal. Mr. Cooper is an advertising executive who represents Carnival. He is also a major political donor to the Florida and national Republican parties. According to the Florida Division of Elections, Mr. Cooper donated $65,000 to the Republican Party of Florida in advance of the 2002 gubernatorial election in which you were running for reelection.[2] In addition, Mr. Cooper contributed $50,000 to the Republican National Committee in advance of the 2004 presidential elections in which your brother was running for reelection.[3]

Apparently, Mr. Cooper sent you an email proposing that Carnival ships be used to provide housing to hurricane evacuees. At 6:18 p.m. on August 31, two days after Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast, you responded: "thank you Ric. I will pass on to Mike Brown. I can't believe they haven't asked as of yet but Mike will respond quickly. Jeb." You copied Mr. Brown on this email…

This is what happens when people who don't believe in government (conservatives) try to govern. They screw it up and use it as a blank check for their donors and friends.

Actually, to be specific, FEMA chartered 4 cruise ships (http://www.disastercenter.com/FEMA%20Hurricane%20Katrina%20Response.html#Tempora ry_Housing_for_Hurricane_Katrina) from Carnival cruie lines for six months. After that time, the refugees had to find somewhere else to go and many moved into the FEMA trailers that were just found last year to be toxic (http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2006/07/are_fema_traile.html).

tell us again why we should put so much faith in the government?

Lol!

tell us again why we should put so much faith in the government?

Because when it is run by people who believe in government it works pretty damn well.
What you quoted is an example of government run by people who do not believe in government. (what we have had for the last 8 and arguably the last 27 years)

You have faith in government like relgious people do in religion. Do you really think the government will ever run efficiently?

Do you really think the government will ever run efficiently?

It has in the past so there is no reason to think it can again once it is purged of the cons who don't believe in government as anything more than a pocket to pick.

When was it the government ran efficiently?

When was it the government ran efficiently?

Define what you mean when you say "efficiently".
It worked fine from the 1940s to the 1980s.

I think efficient government is an oxymoron. It is impossible. In the agency I work for in the federal government, we have a thing called overhead, where we automatically double the price of everything to account for the "overhead", whatever that is. Sorry, but no government that doubles what it pays for everything to account for overhead will ever be efficient.

When was it the government ran efficiently?

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the New Deal: TVA, WPA, FDIC, FHA, SEC, Social Security, et al.

I think efficient government is an oxymoron.

What a coincidence, I think anyone who obsesses about 'efficiency' in government while ignoring or denying the same in the private sector is a moron.

It is impossible. In the agency I work for in the federal government, we have a thing called overhead,

Yeah, that "overhead" includes little things like your salary. (assuming you are not an intern)
You know, unimportant stuff... :rolleyes:
FYI, business' have "overhead" too and it is always higher because they have expenses that government does not, such as executive salaries and shareholder dividends.


where we automatically double the price of everything to account for the "overhead", whatever that is. Sorry, but no government that doubles what it pays for everything to account for overhead will ever be efficient.

What government agency do you work for?

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the New Deal: TVA, WPA, FDIC, FHA, SEC, Social Security, et al.

Great programs all, but what do they prove or disprove about efficiency?

Bingo!

Great programs all, but what do they prove or disprove about efficiency?

That it is a red herring when it comes to the real question of whether government can work for the people effectively.

Being efficient and being effective are not the same thing.

People who obsess on "efficiency" are not being intellectually honest.

What a coincidence, I think anyone who obsesses about 'efficiency' in government while ignoring or denying the same in the private sector is a moron.



Yeah, that "overhead" includes little things like your salary. (assuming you are not an intern)
You know, unimportant stuff... :rolleyes:
FYI, business' have "overhead" too and it is always higher because they have expenses that government does not, such as executive salaries and shareholder dividends.



What government agency do you work for?

What are you some kind of contrarian? You are playing devils advocate right? You can not serisously believe that the private sector and giant government beauracracy are equal in terms of effciency and waste? You seem to forget that private sector companys have a real stake in keeping costs down, that being they will go out of buisness and no longer exist. If government goes over budget they either print more money or just take more of our money.
And another joke is that you point out social secuirty as an efficient government program :rolleyes:

That it is a red herring when it comes to the real question of whether government can work for the people effectively.

Being efficient and being effective are not the same thing.

People who obsess on "efficiency" are not being intellectually honest.

OK, well you can interchange efficient and effective, the governmen tdoes neither.

You can not serisously believe that the private sector and giant government beauracracy are equal in terms of effciency and waste?

You are right, I don't.
I know that the private sector has much higher overhead. You keep trying to ignore the facts of shareholder dividends and executive salaries but they drive up the overhead in the private sector past what the public sector has to worry about.


You seem to forget that private sector companys have a real stake in keeping costs down, that being they will go out of buisness and no longer exist.

They also have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits for shareholders.
Therein lies the rub.


If government goes over budget they either print more money or just take more of our money.

If they raised our taxes everytime they went into deficit spending our taxes would have skyrocketed over the last 8 years. Deficit spending (thanks Reagan) is covered by borrowing and printing more money which devalues our money.


And another joke is that you point out social secuirty as an efficient government program

The real joke is your obsession with "efficiency" in government.

I want effective government and sometimes that requires some inefficiency. For example, I prefer at least two cops per car patrolling the streets even though that is not as "efficient" as only one cop per car.

OK, well you can interchange efficient and effective, the governmen tdoes neither.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the military (which is part of the government you hate so much) is ineffective?

First of all I do not hate the government. I know it is neccessary. All i want is for them to spend the money they take from me wisely, is that to much to ask? FFS you act like I should be happy they take my money and blow it on stupid crap. You don't want an efficient government, I do, excuse me all to hell.

First of all I do not hate the government. I know it is neccessary. All i want is for them to spend the money they take from me wisely, is that to much to ask?

Being more "efficient" will not accomplish that. Cutting corners only makes the services provided worse.

Demanding government be more effective in providing the needed services will accomplish the goal of spending our money more wisely.

Well, they are neither effective or efficient now, so if they decide to do either one of those I guess I will have to be happy with that.

Well, they are neither effective or efficient now, so if they decide to do either one of those I guess I will have to be happy with that.

So you are trying to claim the military is ineffective.

I have to assume that since you repeated the statement after I pointed that out.

I nver said that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth again.

I nver said that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth again.

You said the government is not effective and the military is part of the government.

Not only did you say it, you said it twice.

It is not as effective as it could be.

It is not as effective as it could be.

I agree with that.

It was good to hear John Edwards bring this topic up in his speech tonight.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the military (which is part of the government you hate so much) is ineffective?
they are with cryasses like you on their backs 24/7/365.

they are with cryasses like you on their backs 24/7/365.

...which you say in a whiny, petulent tone. :rolleyes:
ROFL!!!
I am not on the military's "back", "dhrama" queen.