US GOVERNMENT FUCKS UP, PEOPLE DIE

[shai]

What about a national flat sales tax? That would get rid of the IRS, and make the tax code totally unneccessary. FairTax seems like it could solve quite a few problems.

[angelofdeath]

shai hulud, fair tax is the only real world solution that could possibly get implemented. i think i would support it. im sure fermentor would call us both nazis and racist for wanting to abolish federal income tax and cut funding for "welfare, health care, medicare, blah blah." i wonder how in the hell, anyone survived without these oh so spectacular "social programs" before the were created?

 

fermentor, fine, from now on i will refer to you as a socialist. wealth redistribution is socialism. i am not rich. i make around 30k a year. i work for my money. i dont take hand outs. period. i dont rely on the state. im a conservative. to say that you are all for big government, and big spending, means only one thing. liberalism. just because the federal great society and new deal type programs create victim like societies and create reliance on the state, you dont have to get mad at me because i am against them. hell, you should be crawling in bed with bush, since he is one of the biggest spenders to date. i personally believe like Ron Paul, (that evil racist republican that voted against the aid) that we shouldnt just think throwing more money onto an already corrupt and worthless thing like fema will solve anything.

 

i do find it funny, you take it as an insult. if you call me a conservative, i like the compliment. you can always tell a liberal, they always deny it when you call them a liberal.

 

with your logic, you should shut the fuck up about the katrina disaster and the poor federal response "because thats the way its done here in america, so shut the fuck up and get the fuck out. whats with all the hatred man? PMS?

[shai]

The thing is, I DO think there should be some safety nets for people who need it, and the FairTax could easily cover almost all the social programs currently in existence, and create a national surplus when consumer confidence was high...and, as there wouldn't be any deductions from payrolls, it automatically puts money back into the pockets of Americans who would either save it and bump up interest rates, or it would go back into the economy...so, everybody wins, in the end.

 

The problem is, the IRS is a porkbarrel like any other, and most legislators simply don't have the stones to abolish one of the biggest federal employers....Kind of like the reason they don't legalize dope is not because of the health issue, so much as it would effectively put the DEA out of business, and would keep a lot of people out of the prison/industrial complex. And, believe me, those guys have LOBBIES.

 

Like I said, my Libertarian worldview is pretty flexible, but I think this administration gives all conservatives a black eye by cutting taxes when all they do is spend, spend, spend...where's the money going to come from? Certainly not from the private sector, since you don't get obscenely rich by giving it away.

[fermentor666]

I'm not calling you a conservative, get over it. I wish you'd stop trying to pigeonhole me into a political catagory, do it to yourself if it makes you happy but not to me. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a socialist, I'm not a conservative, etc etc etc. I just strongly disagree with your views that everyone should be cut off by the government and find your opinion that the federal government should only fund military programs to be offensive.

 

I'm not going to try and defend all these programs the government throws money at as being noble and corruption-free because I'm not ignorant and have known since I was a wee lad that corruption runs rampant throughout many aspects of the government on both state and federal levels. I do agree that the system needs to be gone thru with a bottle of bleach, but I don't think that the answer is to completely cut everything off. That would make things a hell of a lot worse then they are and is an extremely stubborn and short-sighted viewpoint.

 

And the hate is coming from you trying to label me as something I'm not, particularly because you want a general target to throw darts at. I voted for Kerry, yes, but only because the other option was Bush. There's no point in looking at the other options when you vote on the presidential elections because while yes, my vote counts, it's not going to count enough to get anyone other then a democrat or republican into office. If I honestly believed that the republican was a better choice then the democrat, I would vote for him. Doesn't make me a republican, it makes me a constituent that is disgusted with the system.

 

Throwing money at FEMA is not going to solve the problem because the problem is that the people in charge of FEMA are idiots and unqualified for the job. This is a direct result of the current administration who hands out jobs to campaign cronies. Clinton (and I'm using him as an example because it's the only other administration with which I am FEMA-familiar, not because I'm a bleeding-heart liberal) had someone in charge who knew about disaster relief and I am POSITIVE that if this had happened during his administration, even if there was a war in Iraq (highly unlikely), things would have been handled much more smoothely. And for all the corruption that may or may not be running rampant through FEMA, they are still giving a shitload of money out to the people who had their lives ruined by this disaster. That money doesn't just come out of thin air. Cut off the income from taxes and you just about cut off any chance at these people getting their lives back and more importantly their city, their home, back. Again, Louisiana, and in particular New Orleans, is not wealthy by any means. They simply would not be able to get back on their feet without help on a federal level. It would be equivelant to saying "only the strong survive, this helps weed out the weak", but the only difference is that this is not the Middle Ages when that sort of thing would fly.

 

Again, I don't throw myself into a political catagory simply because I am too disgusted with the way these things work to bother choosing. There are new things that I learn every day that make me feel this way. Personally, I'd rather throw my anger at the corporate takeover of this country, but that's for another thread.

[angelofdeath]

"but I think this administration gives all conservatives a black eye by cutting taxes when all they do is spend, spend, spend...where's the money going to come from? "

 

i agree to an extent, i think teh so called conservatives in office today are more LBJ then Thomas Jefferson. the spending is rediculous and actually pushes them out of the "conservative" label.

[!@#$%]

i just had to comment on this..hahaa ..you can tell a liberal because they deny it?

well isn't that so open minded of you.

the highfalutin politics are well and good when you just define the world on your terms.

 

so how can you get bent when people say you are a conservative?

you can't have everyone pegged, you know.

[fermentor666]

I love how you have absolutely no response to what I wrote, aod, that makes me feel good. Keep fighting for the rich, white guys.

[shai]

[shai]

[hobo knife]

"And the hate is coming from you trying to label me as something I'm not, particularly because you want a general target to throw darts at."

 

This is true. It's like mcarthyism...all the news junkies get filled with hate...they hate a vague portion of society which is almost undefinable...basicaly they are given a scapegoat for anything. And a lot of people eat it up. Some how anything can be blamed on "liberals".

[angelofdeath]

"I love how you have absolutely no response to what I wrote, aod, that makes me feel good. Keep fighting for the rich, white guys. "

 

actually, i had chosen to end the debate, because obviously you know where I stand, and i know where you stand. no ones mind is gonna change, so whats the point?

 

thats cool you dont "throw yourself into a political category." most people say that, but constantly defend a certain ideology and get feisty when someone says they want the federal government returned to its original constitutional republic. there is no reason to get your panties in a bunch, all im saying is wealth redistribution is socialism. does that offend you or something? these programs are funded by working, middle class folks the most. just who do you consider "rich?" people making over 30k a year? if im a bad person because i think people should actually work, and not mooch off of the federal government, then i dont know what the fuck is wrong with you.

 

what has the great society done? racial tensions are worse, poverty hasnt changed, spending on government programs is absolutely rediculous, and nothing has changed, most has gotten worse. throwing more wet wood on the smoldering coals only smothers the fire.

 

im a paleo conservative. i believe in limited government. i believe in the constitutional republic this country was founded on. you dont. that is fine. i say social programs are a failure, and have created unmotivated pawns in our society. the logic of "your only out to defend white rich people" is absolutely hilarious to me. telling someone your no good, you cant do this or that, here rely on me, the federal government for your every need. how do you think minorities feel when the liberal elite constantly say you cant do anything without someone holding your hand?

 

im not "defending the 'rich white people.' " im defending the principles this country was founded on. i believe in equal rights for ALL, special rights for none. look man, if you want welfare and social programs, they SHOULD be the responsibility of the STATE not the feds. that is all im saying. perhaps you cant understand this.

 

do me a favor gain some knowledge.

google the following:

 

federalism

US constitution

read them understand them.

then google:

project 21

Walter Williams

Thomas Sowell

Larry Elder

Jc Watts

Alan Keyes

 

see what these BLACK conservatives and libertarians have to say about all this. are they "just fighting for the rich white guys."

get your head out of your ass.

[fermentor666]

You actually are just fighting for the rich, white guys. You just don't seem to know that. To paraphrase what you said, I'm sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable. This country was not founded on the "every man for yourself" ideology.

 

Much of the problems we have in terms of poverty and race relations are a direct result of this current administration and the Reagen administration. They are not simply there because "liberals" (a stupid comment because there are plenty of conservatives that support programs like welfare) throw money at the poor. And I'd love to see some hard data about "liberals" saying that these people are incompetent and that's why we have to give them money. True, there are plenty of people that take advantage of government handouts, but there are also plenty of people that have found themselves in the position where if they were not given foodstamps, they would starve, if they were not given welfare, they would be shelterless.

 

Many different variables can result in that outcome, often times it is because it is hard to find a job in this country, it is hard to work full-time when you are a single parent raising children, it is hard to attend college when you come from a low-income family and are attending poor-quality city-based public high schools. If you feel that these people do not deserve the chances that other Americans get from inheriting wealth or living in the suburbs where the school systems are significantly better or whatever the situation, then you are cold and callous. That's what offends me, not when you call things socialist or liberalist or conservatist. When you do that I just think you are dumb, but I'm not offended. Although, stupidity does offend me to a certain extent.

 

There are many ways to argue this and I feel like you are sticking to one arguement, that I am a socialist or liberal or anarchist or whatever the fuck label you are trying to hand down. That bores me.

[fermentor666]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_u...HBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

 

CHARITIES ARE FOR SUCKERS

By Ted Rall Tue Sep 13, 8:06 PM ET

 

Leave Katrina Relief Efforts to Government

 

 

 

 

NEW YORK--Hurricane Katrina has prompted Americans to donate more than $700 million to charity, reports the Chronicle of Philanthropy. So many suckers, so little foresight.

 

Government has been shirking its basic responsibilities since the '80s, when

 

Ronald Reagan sold us his belief that the sick, poor and unlucky should no longer count on "big government" to help them, but should rather live and die at the whim of contributors to private charities. The Katrina disaster, whose total damage estimate has risen from $100 to $125 billion, marks the culmination of Reagan's privatization of despair.

 

The

 

American Red Cross leads the post-Katrina sweepstakes, quickly closing in on the $534 million it took in just after 9/11. But Red Cross spokeswoman Sheila Graham told the AP it needs another half billion "to provide emergency relief over the coming weeks for thousands of evacuees who have scattered among 675 of its shelters in 23 states."

 

Shelley Borysiewicz of Catholic Charities USA, which has raised $7 million thus far, also continues to solicit donations: "We don't want people to lose sight of the fact that this is going to take years of recovery, and we're going to be there to help the people who fall through the cracks."

 

What "cracks"? Why should New Orleans' dispossessed have to live in private shelters? We live in the United States, not Mali. There's only one reason flood victims aren't getting help from the government: because the government refuses to help them. The Red Cross and its cohorts are letting lazy, incompetent and corrupt politicians off the hook, and so are their donors.

 

It's ridiculous, but people evidently need to be reminded that the United States is not only the world's wealthiest nation but the wealthiest society that has existed anywhere, ever. The U.S. government can easily pick up the tab for people inconvenienced by bad weather--if helping them is a priority. That goes double for Katrina, a disaster caused by the government's conscious decision to eliminate the $50 million pittance needed to improve New Orleans' levees.

 

For our leaders the optional war against

 

Iraq is such a priority, which the

 

Congressional Budget Office expects to cost $600 billion by 2010. That's four or five Katrinas right there. (That's also where the levee money went.) Because rich people are always a political priority, their taxes have been slashed by $4 trillion over a decade--the equivalent of 32 Katrinas. So worried are our public servants about the tax burden placed on the rich that they're looking out for rich dead people. This is why they've gutted the estate tax that, at a cost of $75 billion annually, will run half a Katrina a year. Trickle-down economists beginning with Milton Friedman shout "starve the beast," but while the social programs are put on a diet, the mean and powerful pig out more than ever.

 

Disaster relief is too important to be left to private fundraisers, with their self-sustaining fundraising expenses, administrative overhead (nine percent for the Red Cross) and their parochial, often religious, agendas. It's also way too expensive. In the final analysis, after the floodwaters have receded and the poor neighborhoods of New Orleans have been razed under eminent domain, major charities will be lucky if they've managed to raise one percent of the total cost of Katrina. Congress, recognizing the reality that only the federal government possesses the means to deal with the calamity, has already allocated $58 billion--over 70 times the amount raised by charities--to flood relief along the Gulf of Mexico. As Bush says, that's only a "down payment."

 

Cutting a check to the Red Cross isn't just a vote for irresponsible government. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what you'll end up paying for Katrina in increased taxes.

 

Granted, in terms of popularity of likelihood of success, trying to make a case against giving money to charities compares to lobbying against puppies. The impulse to donate, after all, is rooted in our best human traits. As we watched New Orleanians die of thirst, disease and anarchic violence in the face of Bush Administration disinterest and local government incompetence, millions of us did the only thing we thought we could to do to help: cut a check or click a PayPal button. Tragically, that generosity feeds into the mindset of the sinister ideologues who argue that government shouldn't help people--the very mindset that caused the levee break that turned Katrina into a holocaust and led to official unresponsiveness. And it is already setting the stage for the next avoidable disaster.

 

It's time to "starve the beast": private charities used by the government to justify the abdication of its duties to its citizens.

 

 

 

-------------

 

 

More support against you. Mind you, I don't feel like everyone should stop supporting charities, but I do agree that without federal aid there would be no repair. How would cutting off federal aid be fair and equal to the people in New Orleans or Biloxi?

[Guest KING BLING]

[angelofdeath]

Originally posted by fermentor666@Sep 14 2005, 04:17 PM

You actually are just fighting for the rich, white guys.  You just don't seem to know that.  To paraphrase what you said, I'm sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable.  This country was not founded on the "every man for yourself" ideology. 

 

Much of the problems we have in terms of poverty and race relations are a direct result of this current administration and the Reagen administration.  They are not simply there because "liberals" (a stupid comment because there are plenty of conservatives that support programs like welfare) throw money at the poor.  And I'd love to see some hard data about "liberals" saying that these people are incompetent and that's why we have to give them money.  True, there are plenty of people that take advantage of government  handouts, but there are also plenty of people that have found themselves in the position where if they were not given foodstamps, they would starve, if they were not given welfare, they would be shelterless.

 

Many different variables can result in that outcome, often times it is because it is hard to find a job in this country, it is hard to work full-time when you are a single parent raising children, it is hard to attend college when you come from a low-income family and are attending poor-quality city-based public high schools.  If you feel that these people do not deserve the chances that other Americans get from inheriting wealth or living in the suburbs where the school systems are significantly better or whatever the situation, then you are cold and callous.  That's what offends me, not when you call things socialist or liberalist or conservatist.  When you do that I just think you are dumb, but I'm not offended.  Although, stupidity does offend me to a certain extent.

 

There are many ways to argue this and I feel like you are sticking to one arguement, that I am a socialist or liberal or anarchist or whatever the fuck label you are trying to hand down.  That bores me.

Quoted post

 

liberals kill me. face it. socialism doesnt work. look at katrina. all this money you have been led to believe is going good, the feds failed. what is new? a neo conservative is not a conservative. both parties in washington are different sides of a wooden nickel.

 

again, do me a favor, read up on the history of this country and how great we did with a small federal government, and how fearful our founders were of a strong federal power.

 

"n our country, states preceded the federal government. The first war with England caused the 13 independent republics to form a confederation for the purpose of fighting the war. After the war, the delegates were instructed to strengthen the Articles of Confederation, and that's what they did. We call it a "constitution," but during the ratification debate, George Washington constantly referred to it as "a stronger confederation."

 

If you will read the Constitution, you will see that the federal government is assigned very few tasks. Mainly it was to coin money and set its value, establish weights and standards, ensure a free-trade zone within the borders, carry the mail, provide a common defense and handle foreign affairs. It was granted only such power as necessary to accomplish its listed, specified duties. Everything else was to be done by the states.

 

It was an eminently sensible plan. After all, who would want 13 different monetary systems, 13 different foreign policies and 13 different armies? We wouldn't have lasted two decades with such a system. On the other hand, it makes eminent sense for the states to handle such matters as health, education, welfare, the environment and social problems.

 

read this again... with your head out of your ass.

 

"do me a favor gain some knowledge.

google the following:

 

federalism

US constitution

read them understand them.

then google:

project 21

Walter Williams

Thomas Sowell

Larry Elder

Jc Watts

Alan Keyes

 

see what these BLACK conservatives and libertarians have to say about all this. are they "just fighting for the rich white guys."

 

your socialist system is really working out real good.

[angelofdeath]

"More support against you. Mind you, I don't feel like everyone should stop supporting charities, but I do agree that without federal aid there would be no repair. How would cutting off federal aid be fair and equal to the people in New Orleans or Biloxi?"

 

yeah dude, the feds are doing such a wonderful job.

 

"the government which governs the best, governs the least" Thomas Jefferson.

[fermentor666]

Alright man, you're just fucking retarded and there's no point in argueing with you, and you keep calling me a fucking liberal so I'm putting you on ignore, you fucking ignorant loser. Goodbye.

[fermentor666]

P.S.: Since I have you on ignore now and there would be no sense in repeating yourself over and over again without paying attention to what other people are saying to you, here's some terms for you to look up:

 

Ignorant

Fuck

Blowhard

Retarded

Asshole

Moron

Stupid

 

 

 

Then, after you've learned the definition of these words you can figure out why I'm applying them to you. Have fun ranting to yourself without using the shift key.

[fermentor666]

Hey, I have a great idea about how to fix the country. Let's just disband and make each state it's own country so that each one is responsible for just itself. That's what our forefathers would have wanted! It's the basis for the foundation of America!

 

 

--------------------------

 

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topstories/i...list=topstories

 

 

Senate kills bid for Katrina commission

9/14/2005, 2:36 p.m. CT

By LARA JAKES JORDAN

The Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans on Wednesday scuttled an attempt by Sen. Hillary Clinton to establish an independent, bipartisan panel patterned after the 9/11 Commission to investigate what went wrong with federal, state and local governments' response to Hurricane Katrina.

 

Advertisement

 

 

 

 

The New York Democrat's bid to establish the panel — which would have also made recommendations on how to improve the government's disaster response apparatus — failed to win the two-thirds majority needed to overcome procedural hurdles. Clinton got only 44 votes, all from Democrats and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Fifty-four Republicans all voted no.

 

"Just as with 9/11, we did not get to the point where we believed we understood what happened until an independent investigation was conducted," Clinton said.

 

The Senate vote is hardly likely to be the last word on whether to create an independent commission or as an alternative a special congressional committee to investigate Katrina. The 9/11 Commission was established in 2002 after resistance from Republicans and the White House, and opinion polls show the public strongly supports the idea. In a CNN/USA Today Gallup poll taken Sept. 8-11, 70 percent of those surveyed supported an independent panel to investigate the government's response to Katrina. Only 29 percent were opposed.

 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has rebuffed a bid by House and Senate GOP leaders to create a committee patterned after the 1987 Iran-Contra panel that would have a GOP majority — reflecting their dominance of Congress.

 

Reid has instead vowed that any bid by Republican leaders to establish a special bipartisan committee involving lawmakers from both House and Senate will go forward only if Democrats have equal representation.

 

Separately, Senate Homeland Security Committee chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Wednesday that Post-9/11 changes to improve the government response to catastrophic disasters failed their first major test in Hurricane Katrina's wake.

 

Despite billions of dollars to boost disaster preparedness at all levels of government, the response to Katrina was plagued by confusion, communication failures and widespread lack of coordination, said Collins as she opened hearings into the disaster.

 

"At this point, we would have expected a sharp, crisp response to this terrible tragedy," Collins said. "Instead, we witnessed what appeared to be a sluggish initial response."

 

The hearing marked Congress' first step in investigating major gaps in the country's readiness and response systems that Katrina exposed. It comes even as Republican and Democrats grapple over whether to appoint an unusual House-Senate panel to investigate the matter, or to create an 9/11-style commission.

 

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the committee, said the response to Katrina "has shaken the public's confidence in the ability of government at all levels to protect them in a crisis."

 

Lawmakers said they did not ask officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Homeland Security Department to appear at the hearing out of fear that would disrupt the ongoing recovery process in the battered Gulf Coast. Instead, a slew of former city and state officials testified about their experiences in facing faced major disasters in their communities.

 

Calling Katrina a "national tragedy," former New Orleans Mayor Marc H. Morial put the primary responsibility for disaster response squarely on the federal government's shoulders. Morial, president of the National Urban League, was New Orleans' mayor from 1994 to 2004.

 

Meanwhile, the House, by voice vote, on Wednesday approved legislation that provides liability protections for people and groups providing volunteer aid for Hurricane Katrina victims.

 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said the Red Cross has cited lawsuit concerns among people interested in taking evacuees into their homes and that doctors traveling to states where they are not licensed face increased liability.

 

The bill, which needs Senate action, would protect from lawsuit volunteers who in good faith and without expectation of compensation offer aid or medical assistance. It would not protect those who willfully carry out criminal acts.

 

Other bills, however, to cut federal red tape and otherwise make it easier to get aid to Katrina victims have hit a slow patch as lawmakers wrestle over how to shape their response.

 

They include proposals to provide Medicaid health benefits to those made homeless by Katrina, lift work rules for welfare recipients, and implement tax changes to help hurricane victims and charitable donors.

 

 

------------

 

 

Those wacky Republicans and their party lines! Those wacky Democrats and their desire to expose the truth!

[shai]

Katrina failings were my fault, Bush admits for first time

 

· President says hurricane exposed serious problems

· Tests planned for 44 bodies found in hospital

 

Jamie Wilson in New Orleans and Julian Borger in Washington

Wednesday September 14, 2005

The Guardian

 

 

For the first time, George Bush yesterday explicitly took responsibility for shortcomings in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Speaking at a press conference at the White House, President Bush said that it had "exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government".

"And to the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Mr Bush said. "I want to know what went wrong or what went right ... It's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on so we can better respond. I'm not going to defend the process going in but I am going to defend the people on the ground saving lives."

 

The discovery of the bodies of at least 44 people inside a flooded New Orleans hospital has raised new questions about evacuation procedures in the wake of the storm. Postmortem examinations are to be carried out on the bodies. It was not clear yesterday how many had died before the hurricane struck, but hospital staff described in harrowing detail attempts to keep already weakened patients alive in the 38C (100F) heat as they waited up to four days for rescue.

Local and state officials have repeatedly blamed the Bush administration for failing to react quickly enough to the unfolding catastrophe, leaving tens of thousands of people trapped in the city for days.

 

There was some confusion over the number of corpses. Bob Johannesen, a spokesman for the state department of health and hospitals, said 45 patients had been found on Sunday inside the 317-bed Memorial Medical Centre in the uptown district of the city; hospital assistant administrator David Goodson said there were 44, plus three in the grounds.

 

Jeffrey Kochan, a Philadelphia radiologist volunteering in New Orleans, said the team that recovered the bodies told him they found 36 corpses floating on the first floor. "These guys were just venting. They need to talk," he told the Associated Press. "They're seeing things no human being should have to see."

 

The water had mostly disappeared from around the hospital yesterday except for a few puddles of toxic-looking brown liquid that gathered in small hollows. But it was a very different scene after Katrina struck. After the levees broke, the floodwaters that engulfed the hospital seeped into the generators and the power went out. The heat began to rise, and, according to a nurse interviewed by the New York Times, the doctors and nurses resorted to fanning the patients in a vain attempt to keep them cool.

 

"When you're already ill and debilitated, dehydration and the extreme heat in there, that certainly was a factor," Sharen Carriere, 47, told the newspaper. "These were sick people."

 

Relatives and nurses were "literally standing over the patients, fanning them", Mr Goodson told AP. "These patients were not abandoned."

 

The hospital's windows were wide open yesterday, almost as if the building was gasping for air. National Guardsmen from Santa Monica were patrolling the grounds and stopping people going inside. Piles of hospital rubbish bags littered the ramp into the ambulance bay.

 

Steven Campanini, a spokesman for the owner of the hospital, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, said some of the patients had died before Katrina arrived, and none of the deaths resulted from lack of food, water or electricity to power medical equipment. The dead may also have included evacuees from other hospitals and the surrounding area who had gathered at Memorial believing it would be safe.

 

Frank Minyard, the Orleans Parish coroner, told NBC that the evacuation of the city was successful, considering that the death toll so far was much lower than expected. But he warned: "There just may be a lot of people who are still down in those deep waters ... My biggest fear is that we will find something down there that is way out of proportion. Hopefully, it doesn't happen, but we worry."

 

The hospital discovery raised Louisiana's official death toll to nearly 280.

 

In Washington the acting director of the federal emergency management agency pledged yesterday to intensify efforts to find more permanent housing for the tens of thousands of survivors. "We're going to get people out of the shelters, we're going to move on and get them the help they need," David Paulison said in his first public comments since taking over from Michael Brown, who resigned on Monday.

 

· A British long-term resident of the New Orleans area was confirmed yesterday as the first British fatality from Katrina. A Foreign Office spokesman gave no more details and said diplomats were in touch with the family. About 100 British citizens are still unaccounted for.

--------------------------

 

I still don't know how to feel about this. The empathetic part of me wants to forgive him for one or two things he's done or said....I know I'll get some flak for this, but I'm only human, and if I'm gonna live in this world, sometimes I have to be a better man and understand where the other guy is coming from, see the good in people, and take whatever the guy is willing to give in the way of an apology or admission of accountability or guilt.

 

However, I wonder if his people put him up to it, since if his popularity goes down any further, impeachment is a real issue, and they all stand a good chance of getting sent packing, along with him.

 

It's a hard choice, and I still haven't come to terms with it...although it IS the first time I've ever heard the guy say, "I take resposibility."

 

That must have been hard for someone who's never had to do it, before.

[hobo knife]

I'd just like to say that...

 

...yea, a lot of people abuse the system and milk welfare for most of their life. And never really work.

 

Some people... have a blue collar mentality and are content working 40 hours a week, 54 weeks a year. And spend 45-50 years busting their ass to retire. ....

 

 

Now, it's important to realize....welfare, is not making this country go broke. In fact, ALL of our social programs don't add up to jack fucking shit when compared with the money we WASTE on the military-industrial complex. Yes, we waste money on the military and other industries...all the time. Money often just dissapears without a trace in the pentagon and in washington.

 

So, please understand this... when bashing our social programs and the people who benefit from them you sound silly. It's like you're screaming about losing ten cents to the poor yesterday, while today you lost ten thousand dollars to the military.

 

It's actually, in my opinion, part of an agenda... You're distracted by this meaningless argument, you develop strong convictions about something thats irrelevant. Meanwhile, taxes are being cut for the rich, needless contracts awarded without reason worth billions, wars being waged, and all you can do is attack "liberals" with whatever the current topic is.

 

Our problem is not the poor people of this country. They aren't rigging elections. They aren't waging wars. They aren't cutting taxes for the elite rich. But go on....keep hating poor people (who might just realize recieving a welfare check beats the hell outta working at mc'ds to just barely scrape by)

[fermentor666]

That's what I'm screaming at this mother fucker but he just doesn't listen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And it's not like people collecting welfare are living decently, anyway.

 

 

 

 

Edit: But keep in mind that fagmo believes that the ONLY thing the government should fund is military spending, so I think he's permanently brainwashed, like Laurence Harvey in the Manchurian Candidate (1962).

[fermentor666]

Two students got into an argument with five men outside this Cleveland Circle store early Wednesday. (Globe Staff Photo / George Rizer)

 

 

By Ken Maguire, Associate Press Writer | September 14, 2005

 

BOSTON --Two Loyola University students attending classes at Boston College after their school was shut down by Hurricane Katrina were stabbed on a Boston street early Wednesday morning.

 

 

 

Joseph Vairo, 19, was stabbed at least twice. He was in serious condition at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a hospital spokeswoman said. Marley Lovell, 20, of Oakland, Calif., was treated and released for cuts and a broken nose. Vairo is originally from Holden.

 

The sophomores -- among 150 from Loyola and Tulane University who are temporarily attending Boston College -- got into an argument with five men at 1:30 a.m. outside a Store 24 in Cleveland Circle, said Officer Mike McCarthy, a Boston police spokesman.

 

They walked away, but were attacked moments later, McCarthy and Boston College spokesman Jack Dunn said. McCarthy said there have been no arrests. Police said they are seeking two young men.

 

"It's clear that they were the victims here," Dunn said of the students.

 

Vairo was stabbed "multiple times" in the "left and right chest area," Dunn said, and was "doing remarkably well."

 

It was not immediately known if the students had been in the New Orleans area when Katrina struck. On Sept. 6, they began attending classes at Boston College, one of many schools around the country that reached out to displaced students.

 

"They have been most grateful for the opportunity to study here while their universities are closed and had been widely embraced by the Boston College community, which is why this random and unusual act of violence is so upsetting," Dunn said.

 

Loyola, located in New Orleans, is closed for the fall semester. The school's Web site said the campus suffered only minor physical damage and will reopen for the spring semester.

 

"Our concerns and prayers are with the two men and their families," Loyola spokeswoman Kristine Lelong said. "We know this is an especially difficult time."

 

Vairo is a business administration major. Lovell's major is music industries studies, Lelong said.

 

Calls to the Vairo family in Holden and to Lovell's family in Oakland were not immediately returned.

 

The two victims were living off campus, although most displaced students are on campus. After the hurricane, the city of Boston approved an emergency permit to allow Boston College to house 100 displaced students in a building it recently purchased from the Archdiocese of Boston.

 

"It's a very safe area, that's why it's all so surprising and upsetting to us," Dunn said of Cleveland Circle.

 

 

© Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

 

--------------

 

 

Not sure if this is just Bostonian stupidity or if it's signs of resentment.

[POIESIS]

[ralph]click[/ralph]

[fermentor666]

This guy is one of the 11 republican scumbags.

 

http://today.reuters.com/investing/finance...-BANKRUPTCY.XML

 

U.S. lawmaker won't reopen bankruptcy for Katrina

Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:35 PM ET

 

 

WASHINGTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - The chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said on Tuesday he had no intention of reopening a sweeping bankruptcy law passed by Congress earlier this year, despite proposals to exempt Hurricane Katrina victims from some of its provisions.

 

The new, more stringent bankruptcy law will not harm people left "down and out" by the storm, Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner said.

 

He said he would not hold a hearing in his committee on a bill by the panel's ranking Democrat, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, and 31 other Democrats who want to exempt Hurricane Katrina victims from parts of the new bankruptcy law. A chairman's decision not to hold a hearing usually prevents a House bill form advancing.

 

Congress last spring passed the new bankruptcy law, which makes it harder for heavily indebted Americans to wipe out their obligations. It goes into effect on Oct. 17.

 

Backers said it was needed to crack down on abuse of the bankruptcy system.

 

But after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, Conyers said hurricane victims should be exempted from a means test in the new law that determines whether filers can be put on debt repayment plans.

 

Sensenbrenner said Conyer's argument was "specious" because someone completely wiped out financially, whether by Katrina or anything else, would not be put on a repayment plan under the new law.

 

"If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply," Sensenbrenner told Reuters.

 

Such a person would still be able to file to have their debts canceled under what is known as Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Sensenbrenner said.

 

In the Senate, Wisconsin Democrat Russell Feingold has introduced legislation that would let Katrina victims file under the old bankruptcy law for another year.

 

Even before the hurricane, record numbers of people were rushing to file for bankruptcy before the more stringent new law goes into effect. The American Bankruptcy Institute said recently that quarterly filings for the period from April to the end of June were the highest in U.S. history at 467,333 -- up 11 percent from the same quarter a year earlier.

 

 

---------------

 

That in contrast with this:

 

----------------

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/14/1028/17956

 

 

Too long to post.

 

 

---------

 

 

Here, angelofdeath, lemme save you the trouble of responding by posting for you.

 

"Blah blah blah, fuck the people, blah blah blah, let them get out of debt themselves even though they have no homes or jobs anymore, blah blah blah, this country was founded on denying social programs, blah blah blah, anyone who disagrees with me is a liberal or a socialist.

[casekonly]

and they think it was a good political move for bush to take the blame?

 

wtf ever. his 'job approval' ratings are dropping every day.

 

time to take america back.

[shai]

Okay, guys, what I say might piss you off, but hear me out, please. These debates are getting pretty far away from the point, and nasty to boot. If no one's gonna say anything, I will, since I feel like I fall somewhere between these two.

 

I'm not going to defend anyone, since some of the things that were said were rude and inflammatory, but I was able to communicate with both of you fine, and I thought when one wasn't insulting the other there were some good points made, on either side...And, fermentor, this is not because he agrees with some of what I say, since I could easily say the same of you. It's just that censoring him won't help you to understand where he's coming from, any better than slamming each other because you don't see eye to eye will.

 

This is EXACTLY why liberals and conservatives don't, can't and won't understand each other. The media crates a rift, and actually promotes ill will by allowing Rush Limbaugh to beat up on liberals with impunity, and Michael Moore beat up on conservatives in his movies. Why? Because rhetoric sells more advertising than reason, I suppose...I really have no idea, but I think it would be far more encouraging, as an American, to see a real dialogue between the two sides as opposed to sensationalist, jingoist, knee-jerk drivel that is actually passed off as "political commentary".

 

As I've said before, I'm more old Right than anything else. That's why I identify with the Libertarians on a lot of points, but I don't identify with them unilaterally. I'm registered with the Greens, since I feel strongly about enviromental issues. I vote independent of political affiliaton, since the Greens only ran a presidental candidate once (Ralph Nader, who had my vote because Al Gore frightens me more than Bush.). Before that, I voted for Clinton. So, politically, I guess you could say I'm all over the map. All I do is follow MY conscience, and not prevailing sentiment. I'm not easily swayed, and I'll never be bought.

 

Having grown up poor, I think welfare and Medicaid are absolutely vital, since if it hadn't been for them, I don't know if I'd be here. I've been paying into SSI for half my life, I don't want to see it go anywhere unless it's the will of the people and there's an adequate replacement NOT based on voodoo economics. The prison/military-industrial complex, to me, is highway fucking robbery, but I'm enough of a realist to see that we need security on both ends, and regard it as a neccesary evil.

 

Let's see, what else. I was homeless for three years, got sick of it, got a job, and got my shit together- all before the age of twenty. If I can do it, then that healthy-looking kid who hit me up yesterday can goddamn well do it too, if he meant to. He told me that him and his family were on the street. I said, "All four of you? Who works? Who was paying the piper, here? You folks have nicer clothes than I do. You have a MINIVAN, for Christ's sake! Get your hustle on, man! Go to St. Vincent de Paul, or the Salvation Army, or your church...I was where you say you are once. I got out, and that's how I did it. Good luck." And, if he wasn't trying to con me, that's the biggest favor I could have given him.

 

I got hurt on the job a little over three years ago. Spent fifteen months going to doctors, PT, lawyers...the whole nine. Who paid for it? The state, of course. When I got sick of waiting around for retraining, I went out and got a job. Still have the same job, in fact.

 

The point of all this? All of my experiences have taught me not to see things as black and white, since when IT, whatever IT is, happens to the next guy, he learns about the shades of grey real quick, and what it's like of be "one of them", be it homeless, diabled, poor, strung out, evacuated, it doesn't matter.

 

I don't think 12 oz. is gonna change the world, here. I used to come here to look at graff and talk trash and, well, shit happens, I guess. I realize these are emotional issues, but set a better example, and try- just TRY- to not be that hard on each other. Both of you are obviously smart, and could maybe learn a thing or two if you took each other a little less seriously. I mean, shit, I work with lawyers every day. I learned that you can be cutthroat, but these guys are cool, calm, and dispassionate and use logic to win cases 90% of the time. Seriously...90%. All that courtroom drama you see on television? Never seen it, in eight years, not ONCE.

 

So, do what you will with this. It's free advice. But, unless it's my girl involved, I very, very rarely lose arguments anymore.

[shai]

Originally posted by casekonly@Sep 15 2005, 03:06 AM

and they think it was a good political move for bush to take the blame?

 

wtf ever. his 'job approval' ratings are dropping every day.

 

time to take america back.

Quoted post

Ha ha...that's right, they're screwed if he stays, too! And, if it's the will of the people to do something to change things, then I'm on it like vomit...

 

There was just some surprise that he did that, on my end. And, a whole lot of skepticism.

[angelofdeath]

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."

-- Thomas Sowell (black conservative, OMG HE'S SO RACIST!@..$@! WAIT HE'S BLACK, OMG ANOTHER UNCLE TOM LIKE CLARENCE THOMAS!!!!!@..$)

 

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'"

-- Thomas Jefferson

[angelofdeath]

from "Mr. Libertarian" himself...

 

Government and Hurricane: A Deadly Combination

 

by Murray N. Rothbard

 

 

This article first appeared in the The Free Market for December 1989.

 

Natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and volcanic eruptions, occur from time to time, and many victims of such disasters have an unfortunate tendency to seek out someone to blame. Or rather, to pay for their aid and rehabilitation. These days, Papa Government (a stand-in for the hapless taxpayer) is called on loudly to shell out. The latest incident followed the ravages of Hurricane Hugo, when many South Carolinians turned their wrath from the mischievous hurricane to the federal government and its FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) for not sending far more aid more quickly.

 

But why must taxpayers A and B be forced to pay for natural disasters that strike C? Why can't C and his private insurance carriers foot the bill? What is the ethical principle that insists that South Carolinians, whether insured or non-insured, poor or wealthy, must be subsidized at the expense of those of us, wealthy or poor, who don't live on the southern Atlantic Coast, a notorious hurricane spot in the autumn? Indeed, the witty actor who regularly impersonates President Bush on Saturday Night Live was perhaps more correct than he realized when he pontificated: "Hurricane Hugo – not my fault." But in that case, of course, the federal government should get out of the disaster aid business, and FEMA should be abolished forthwith.

 

If the federal government is not the culprit as portrayed, however, other government forces have actually weighed in on Hugo's side, and have escalated the devastation that Hugo has wreaked. Consider the approach taken by local government. When Hurricane Hugo arrived, government imposed compulsory evacuation upon many of the coastal areas of South Carolina. Then, for nearly a week after Hugo struck the coast, the mayor of one of the hardest-hit towns in South Carolina, the Isle of Palms near Charleston, used force to prevent residents from returning to their homes to assess and try to repair the damage.

 

How dare the mayor prevent people from returning to their own homes? When she finally relented, six days after Hugo, she continued to impose a 7:00 pm curfew in the town. The theory behind this outrage is that the local officials were "fearful for the homeowners' safety and worried that there would be looting." But the oppressed residents of the Isle of Palms had a different reaction. Most of them were angered; typical was Mrs. Pauline Bennett, who lamented that "if we could have gotten here sooner, we could have saved more."

 

But this was scarcely the only case of a "welfare state" intervening and making matters worse for the victims of Hugo. As a result of the devastation, the city of Charleston was of course short of many commodities. Responding to this sudden scarcity, the market acted quickly to clear supply and demand by raising prices accordingly: providing smooth, voluntary, and effective rationing of the suddenly scarce goods. The Charleston government, however, swiftly leaped in to prevent "gouging" – grotesquely passing emergency legislation making the charging of higher prices post-Hugo than pre-Hugo a crime, punishable by a maximum fine of $200 and 30 days in jail.

 

Unerringly, the Charleston welfare state converted higher prices into a crippling shortage of scarce goods. Resources were distorted and misallocated, long lines developed as in Eastern Europe, all so that the people of Charleston could have the warm glow of knowing that if they could ever find the goods in short supply, they could pay for them at pre-Hugo bargain rates.

 

Thus, the local authorities did the work of Hurricane Hugo intensifying its destruction by preventing people from [p. 97] staying at or returning to their homes, and aggravating the shortages by rushing to impose maximum price controls. But that was not all. Perhaps the worst blow to the coastal residents was the intervention of those professional foes of humanity – the environmentalists.

 

Last year, reacting to environmentalist complaints about development of beach property and worry about "beach erosion" (do beaches have "rights", too?), South Carolina passed a law severely restricting any new construction on the beachfront, or any replacement of damaged buildings. Enter Hurricane Hugo, which apparently provided a heaven-sent opportunity for the South Carolina Coastal Council to sweep the beachfronts clear of any human beings. Geology professor Michael Katuna, a Coastal Council consultant, saw only poetic justice, smugly declaring that "Homes just shouldn't be right on the beach where Mother Nature wants to bring a storm ashore." And if Mother Nature wanted us to fly, She would have supplied us with wings?

 

Other environmentalists went so far as to praise Hurricane Hugo. Professor Orrin H. Pilkey, geologist at Duke who is one of the main theoreticians of the beach-suppression movement, had attacked development on Pawleys Island, northeast of Charleston, and its rebuilding after destruction by Hurricane Hazel in 1954. "The area is an example of a high-risk zone that should never have been developed, and certainly not redeveloped after the storm." Pilkey now calls Hugo "a very timely hurricane," demonstrating that beachfronts must return to Nature.

 

Gered Lennon, geologist with the Coastal Council, put it succinctly: "However disastrous the hurricane was, it may have had one healthy result. It hopefully will rein in some of the unwise development we have had along the coast."

 

The Olympian attitude of the environmentalist rulers contrasted sharply with the views of the blown-out residents themselves. Mrs. Bennett expressed the views of the residents of the Isle of Palms. Determined to rebuild on the spot, she pointed out: "We have no choice. This is all we have. We have to stay here. Who is going to buy it?" Certainly not the South Carolina environmental elite. Tom Browne, of Folly Beach, S.C., found his house destroyed by Hurricane Hugo. "I don't know whether I'll be able to rebuild it or if the state would even let me," complained Browne. The law, he pointed out, is taking a property without compensation. "It's got to be unconstitutional."

 

Precisely. Just before Hugo hit, David Lucas, a property owner on the Isle of Palms, was awarded $1.2 million in a South Carolina court after he sued the state over the law. The court ruled that the state could not deprive him of his right to build on the land he owned without due compensation. And the South Carolina environmentalists are not going to be able to force the state's taxpayers to pay the enormous compensation for not being allowed to rebuild all of the destruction wrought by Hurricane Hugo.

 

Skip Johnson, an environmental consultant in South Carolina, worries that "it's just going to be a real nightmare. People are going to want to rebuild and get on with their lives." The Coastal Council and its staff, Johnson lamented, "are going to have their hands full." Let's hope so.

 

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

 

Copyright © 1989 Ludwig von Mises Institute

All rights reserved.