September 16, 2005
Look at Me Now
President Bush made a speech, in the little-harmed part of New Orleans, to show the country that, though he was inattentive at the time Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath destroyed New Orleans, now he is ready to be the problem-solver-in-chief. He will make sure that New Orleans will recover, that its people will flourish and the poor will be taken care of. His speech has been called conservative, compassionate and liberal - by different people, of course. It is none of these. The purpose of Bush’s speech is to regain power. Power is all Bush is interested in.
Bush offered 3 main proposals, as explained in the L.A. Times:
"These proposals include a Gulf Opportunity Zone, offering tax incentives and loans for small businesses; Worker Recovery Accounts, providing as much as $5,000 a person for education, job training and child care; and an urban homesteading initiative, giving federally owned property to aspiring homeowners through a lottery."
Conservatives do not like this because it's not a conservative idea. Steve Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said:
"The lack of a spending plan makes this speech appear to be more about political damage control than disaster relief. The bottom line is, we can't afford to simply hand over the keys to the Treasury."
It sounds compassionate, but it is nothing of the sort. For business, Bush offered up to $200,000 in tax deductions, because as he said:
"It is entrepreneurship that creates jobs and opportunity, and we will take the side of entrepreneurs as they lead the economic revival of the gulf region."
For the poor he offers a lottery. If you win the lottery, then you may build a house on government land, probably far away from the rich. Can you see the makings of another ghetto here? And what happens to those who do not win the lottery?
Some pundits sounded off and compared Bush's actions to the action of liberals, such as FDR and LBJ. Nonsense. The only thing he offers to the poor are up to $5,000 for job training, child care and other expenses for looking for a job. Not much. A few of the things Bush forgot to talk about are housing and health care; he already acted to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act so wages of the poor could be lowered.
If we can't characterize the speech as conservative, compassionate or liberal, what is it? Propaganda. Here are a few marks of his propaganda:
- Bush picked Jackson Square to speak from. No trace of disaster could be seen in the picture
- He gave a list of goodies and forgot to put a price tag on it
- He offered no details about implementation
- He said the federal government will absorb most of the cost. What does "most" mean? Fifty one percent will do it
- The Enterprise Zone is an opportunity to pay off some Republican leaders and business cronies
- The lottery idea is extremely vague - as you would expect, because it deals with the poor
The speech was pure propaganda. Bush is not a conservative, nor is he compassionate. He definitely is not a liberal. The purpose of the speech was to say "Look at me now. I'm a problem-solver."
It will not help him. People are beginning to see that Bush and the Republicans are interested only in maintaining their grip on power.
Posted by Paul Siegel at September 16, 2005 06:19 PMKeep flappin’ your wings, Paul…You too will fly some day…
Posted by: Discerner at September 16, 2005 07:23 PMLike Iraq, and the national debt, the more problems he tries to solve the more he doubles the problems we have to face in the wake of his actions.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 16, 2005 07:34 PMWill we get to a time where we can honestly debate and question the merits of Bush’s failed fiscal policies that drag us further into red ink? These are the policies that are based on the same old tired rhetoric and rationalizations of how entrepenurial business iniatives will save the day. Yes the rich will again be the only winners in this tradjedy called Katrina.
So while our republican whittles away at medicare, medicaid, social security and provides lavish tax cuts for corporate interests and rich estates, we can take heart in how secure we are at home and how the billions spent in far away lands provide a better future for somebody other than the 99% of Americans who continue to fall further behind…
Posted by: Bill at September 16, 2005 08:17 PMWhy do my children have to pay for the failed policies of another red state and red President?
Posted by: Burt at September 16, 2005 09:04 PMThe purpose of Bush’s speech is to regain power. Power is all Bush is interested in.
He’s the most powerful chimp in the world. Why should he lose all that over several hundred dead black people? He ate an entire raw onion in college for $10, you think he’s gonna stop now?
Posted by: Taylor at September 16, 2005 09:12 PMWhy do my children have to pay for the failed policies of another red state and red President?
For the same reason they are going to incinerate to ash and cinders and then be scattered like dust by the shockwave of the suitcase nuke Shrubby is going to let into the country. United we stand, united we fall, silly.
Posted by: Taylor at September 16, 2005 09:38 PMWell let’s start with the pork bill that just passed oops highway bill that just passed. Then let’s move on to all the spending on ILLEGAL ALIENS and spend it on REAL AMERICAN CITIZENS that where harmed by a Natural disaster that no man can control. Now let’s cut some more of the crap out of Congress and the Senate all those multi millionares need a pay cut, and all those social programs that haven’t worked the half century they have been on the books. Wher are all those Democratic proposals all I hear is accusations and no substance typical!
Posted by: CAD at September 16, 2005 10:39 PMBurt wrote: Why do my children have to pay for the failed policies of another red state and red President?
They shouldn’t have to. But, don’t kid yourself if you think Democrats (who are most likely going to win back the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress) will fix everything.
Why?
Because politicians won’t dare risk re-electionm by tackling tough problems, and making tough decisions.
Because, their track record (Democrats and Republicans) is to simply take turns gettin’ their’s, peddlin’ influence, and takin’ turns being irresponsible and unaccountable, growing goverment and the National Debt ever larger, to nightmare proportions.
Because we, the voters, tolerate it.
We, in fact, empower them to continue doing what they do. We vote for them over and over, and they keep being irresponsible and unaccountable. I’m guilty too. But no more. No more main-party support, because they just take turns, and they’re hopin’ voters don’t catch on to what’s really goin’ on.
Because $8 trillion in National Debt, $1 billion per day in interest, $1 billion per day borrowed (or printed) to pay the $1 billion per day of interest, and the ever growing National Debt, is now too big. Even if we stopped borrowing (or printing) $1 billion per day, and started paying back $1 billion per day, it would take 127 years to pay down the National Debt. It’s not going to happen. Most politicians know it (that is, the ones that know how many zeros are in a trillion). The people, however, don’t get it. Some still think we’ve got surpluses.
Because, we are dying a death of 1000 cuts. The nation is hemorrhaging from decades of irresponsibility, greed, neglect, corruption, and unaccountability.
Because our many pressing problems are culminating to create the perfect economic storm. Inflation will be the first phase. Then, investors will flee from the U.S. Then, the U.S. will have double digit inflation, people will move more investments over seas, unemployment will soar, wages and salaries will fall, the standard of living will plummet, and the government will pitt the elderly against the young who will be saddled with trying to finance the astronomical cost of their Social Security and Medicare. If you think that’s all far fetched, or not even within the realm of possibility, then you’re dreamin’, and you’ll get burned, just like those that got burned before 2000, when I said the stock market bubble was about to burst, and the huge run up in the market could not be sustained. Those that got out early were OK. Those that hung on, and on, and on, were brutalized. Likewise with the coming economic problems facing the U.S. You can not run up National Debt as high as GDP, continue to print and borrow and spend forever. If I didn’t know better, I’d say some one in government is trying to bring on another Great Depression, because they seem to be doing just about everything they can to cause it.
Posted by: d.a.n at September 16, 2005 11:27 PM—-
Wher are all those Democratic proposals all I hear is accusations and no substance typical!
—-
The proposals are out there - but you have to be willing to read them. however, that’s not the point of this thread.
I hear this complaint quite a lot from REPs, and I agree that we need to be better about offering up our solutions, but maybe your anger would be better spent trying to stop BUSH from giving us so many failures to complain about.
Posted by: tony at September 17, 2005 09:47 AMCAD, all those social programs over the last 50 years were very successful.
And Democrats have all kinds of good ideas. Here’re some. And it’s Democrats who insisted that Katrina victims should get $600/month housing vouchers, and it’s Democrats who are shaming Republicans into helping the Katrina victims at all.
Republicans just wanted to bulldoze the place and move on, “so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this - this is working very well for them.”
I really don’t see why Democrats need to show any plan at all. The Republicans control the entire Government. I find it superfluous that the Right continues to harp about “Dems don’t have a plan” when they refuse to criticize about their own idiotic actions. What has Bush done lately that is even remotely Conservative?
Posted by: Aldous at September 17, 2005 12:00 PM“Why do my children have to pay for the failed policies of another red state and red President?”
For the same reason my parents, myself and my children have to pay for the failed social policies of blue states: to make more people dependent on govt and to make the liberals feel better about themselves.
Posted by: kctim at September 17, 2005 12:32 PMAnd it’s Democrats who insisted that Katrina victims should get $600/month housing vouchers, and it’s Democrats who are shaming Republicans into helping the Katrina victims at all.Interesting. The GOP controls both houses and executive branch; but somehow the DEMS are responsible for anything good done. Interesting that you claim you can’t do anything because the GOP will not allow yet… yet here you make clear that you DO have power. The power to shame and make the GOP do what you want. If that is the case, solve the problems and quit claiming you cannot.
Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 12:44 PM
To KCTIM:
To which “failed social policies of blue states” are you referring? What factual evidence can you share to prove have they only succeeded in making liberals feel good about themselves? How exactly are they causing you, your parents, and your children such pain.
If you are so sure of your position, you can surely back it up with factual evidence that will withstand scrutiny. How about it?
Posted by: Robert Benjamin at September 17, 2005 02:27 PMRobert -
… everyone knows that facts have a liberal bias.
Posted by: tony at September 17, 2005 04:14 PMIn the mid 1700’s King George III wanted Americans to bow down and pay up. 230 years later King George W wants the same thing. Support the wealthy.( no sense in EVERY one going under!) I think it’s more about ego than money. After all— how many millions does one really need? The rich won”t live long enough to spend it all. Sure—- they can leave it to their heirs so that THEY won”t have to WORK. ( or as my dad called it ” earning your way”) With no incentive to work, there’s no incentive to get an education and you end up right where we’re at now—-with the ” C ” students running the show, spending YOUR money as fast as you can make it, sending YOUR kids to wars we shouldn’t be fighting ( and where were THEY when it was THEIR turn?) It’s a no brainer (pun intended). George the III and George the *#@*# are clones. Let the revolution begin anew.
Posted by: smitty at September 17, 2005 05:23 PMkctim,
Would that include those apparently dependent corporations that can found in line at the federal feeding trough every year?
And would that be considered a red state success that is justified because you need a job that a corporation cannot provide in a free market environment?
The corporate socialist are just another group found in long line of consrvative pretenders who seem to be full of kool-aid scented crap.
Posted by: dtom21 at September 18, 2005 06:14 AMInteresting. The GOP controls both houses and executive branch; but somehow the DEMS are responsible for anything good done.
Yeah jo, the funny thing about that amendment was that Democrats introduced it, and Congress passed it by voice vote. Obviously a few Republicans thought it was a good idea too, but since there are no records kept of voice votes, we’ll never know which ones.
