US GOVERNMENT FUCKS UP, PEOPLE DIE

[angelofdeath]

What Can 70 Years of Welfare Produce?

 

by Vin Suprynowicz

 

Juicier details will doubtless emerge – I'm betting we'll see faked-up emergency response plans; levee repair money diverted to build fancy marinas, riverboats, and casinos; the "best and the bravest" abandoning their posts and the buses that could have carried many to safety.

 

But it would be hard to do a better basic exposé on how disastrous it proved for the residents of New Orleans to place all their faith in "government" than has already been accomplished by our friend Lew Rockwell.

 

"Gulf Coast residents know precisely what it means to be trapped – ostensibly by a flood but actually by statist policies and ideological commitments that put the government in charge of crisis management and public infrastructure," Lew wrote on Sept. 2.

 

"The levees that failed and caused New Orleans to be flooded, bringing a humanitarian crisis not seen in our country in modern times, were owned and maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. ... Who knew that a direct hit by a hurricane would cause them to break? Many people, it turns out. Ivor van Heerden of Louisiana State University, reports Newsday, 'has developed flooding models for New Orleans, was among those issuing dire predictions as Katrina approached, warnings that turned out to be grimly accurate.'

 

"Only the public sector can preside over a situation this precarious and display utter and complete inertia," Mr. Rockwell continued. "What do these people have to lose? They are not real owners. There are no profits or losses at stake. They do not have to answer to risk-obsessed insurance companies who insist on premiums matching even the most remote contingencies. So long as it seems to work, they are glad to go about their business in the soporific style famous to all public sectors everywhere. ... "

 

Which brings me to the most disturbing thing I saw on television during the non-stop coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

 

For the most part, it appeared middle-class and working-class citizens of New Orleans – the kind of people who have jobs and possess private automobiles – had mostly left by the time the storm hit in all its fury. What cameramen found at and near the Superdome the next day, as the floodwaters rose, were members of a mostly black underclass with no resources of their own, a people who over a period of generations have come to expect someone else – through the cash redistribution agency known as "government" – to provide them with or heavily subsidize their housing, their transportation, their health care, even their children's schooling.

 

(How'd that "public transportation system" work, guys?)

 

According to The New York Times, about a third of the New Orleans police force simply walked off the job. Videos show uniformed officers joining in the systematic looting, which was so shameless that looters on occasion waited calmly in line with their shopping carts to take their turn.

 

Do we need to ask what 70 years of the welfare state have taught these folks to believe about "property rights"?

 

And those who were not busy looting were not merely pleading for help. They were angry. They were shouting into the cameras, addressing someone out there – the government? Us? – who they believed owed them an obligation to "get on down here" and bring them some stuff. Food, water, whatever they needed. Bring it to us – the message seemed clear – or we're just going to take it.

 

Americans were once a people proud of their relative self-sufficiency. Yes, we lend our neighbors a helping hand. But my family and the families of most Americans were essentially penniless 70 years ago. Since the Great Depression, we have worked and saved until we have some assets. We set aside for the future.

 

OK, our "security" can turn out to be partly illusory, in the face of nature's power – the trust and support of our neighbors and families may be worth more than we realize.

 

But the value of planning and setting aside is not entirely an illusion. We have cars and bank accounts, accessible even if we're forced to leave home. We have set aside emergency food and water and flashlights and batteries and firearms to defend ourselves and our property. If I lived in a city built below sea level, what would it cost me to buy and store a rubber raft or a beat-up old canoe – perhaps on the roof?

 

Hurricanes are not unforeseen disasters. They come every year.

 

Self-sufficiency has survival value. Applied over a period of generations, the welfare state can breed self-sufficiency out of a people.

 

Look at the fate of the mendicant classes in New Orleans – the ones who trusted government to "provide." Look at what happened to the property of the merchants who trusted their taxes were buying them "police protection." And beware.

 

 

September 13, 2005

[angelofdeath]

Rebuilding the Gulf Coast

by John Sampson

by John Sampson

 

 

 

I have just returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast. Members of my church organized relief supplies and formed a cavalcade of trucks carrying food, water, and clothing. We initially went to help a small church in Bayou LaBatrie, a church whose congregation had been involved in the relief effort almost as soon as Katrina had passed. Finding our help was more desperately needed in Biloxie, we formed up with a similar group that had come down from Michigan and proceeded on to some of the worst hit parts of the three-state area. The scope of the devastation is simply beyond human imagination and I came back to Georgia despondent and pessimistic. The realistic hope to rebuild the Gulf Coast in our lifetime seemed beyond the bounds of the possible. However, I had a long conversation with my long-time libertarian nephew, who had an ingenious suggestion.

 

The Gulf Coast should be declared a tax-free and regulation-free zone, at least for a limited period of time. Period. It is a simple idea, but like many simple ideas, it has profound implications, some of which I would like to explore. In the first place, the "limited period of time" would have to be defined. I would prefer it to be indefinite, but to expect that the government would forego their tax and regulatory power forever is simply unrealistic. I suggest that 10 years would be a realistic period. It would allow a reasonable period of time for those who wished to move into the area (I do not limit these people only to those who left, but to those who would want to live there under the conditions proposed). The area would be a tax-free zone. The miniscule amount of funds needed to provide police protection would be provided by user fees. This freedom from taxation must be absolute. There would be no federal, state, or local taxes whatsoever. There would be no Social Security taxes withheld from paychecks, no Medicare taxes, no capital gains or unemployment taxes paid by businesses (nor any other business tax, for that matter), no property taxes, special assessments for neighborhood improvements, sales taxes, inheritance taxes, fees paid for business licenses, and so on. And the miniscule amount of revenue raised by user fees would go toward the provision of police protection of person and property, and the enforcement of voluntarily agreed upon contracts. Yes, I know that many anarcho-libertarians such as myself believe that protection could best be provided by private agencies. But I think that is too big a leap right now for the average American to even consider. What of all the "services" that government now provides? All would be provided by the private sector, that is, by entrepreneurs seeking to make a profit by providing for human needs as demonstrated by the process of the free market, supply and demand and the adjustment of prices that demonstrates consumer preferences. Schooling? It would be expected that many parents would home school, but I expect that many private schools would spring up. The success or failure of any such enterprise would be determined solely by how well consumer needs are met. Fire protection? Private companies, volunteer organizations, insurance cooperatives organized by businesses, who knows what the private market would do or how the system would evolve? And I leave it to a possible future article to explore the ramifications of no government regulation whatsoever. But natural law, rather than administrative law, would prevail. That is, murder, theft, rape, fraud, and all crimes that violate the inviolability of one's sovereignty over one's body and the fruits of one's labor would be absolutely prohibited (unlike in the present system).

 

What of those receiving government subsidies? There would be none. Anyone who chose to live in the affected area would forego any and all government handouts, at least until they chose to leave the area or the grace period expired. This would be an attraction to those who might be receiving some assistance now but who might be attracted by the idea of true liberty and the chance to improve their standard of living without any government interference whatsoever. The attraction to dynamic and flexible businesses to move in and to conduct their affairs so as to operate in the most efficient manner and without the incredible burden of complicity with the endless amount of government regulation, would be undeniable. Likewise, the prospect to potential employees to take home all the fruits of their labor would act as a strong inducement to bring back productive people into the area. It is estimated that up to 50% of our income is now confiscated in one way or another, and that regulatory costs drive up the cost of living perhaps by 50%. Even if nominal wages were to lower, because of the absence of minimum-wage laws, for example, real wages and standard of living would be higher because of increased purchasing power. What would this increased purchasing power buy? Some with high time preferences might choose to spend it all on present goods. Others might choose to save a significant portion, perhaps to invest in the affected area so as to continually improve their standard of living. But whatever would be done, would be done without any government coercion whatsoever. Each person would be free to live his or her life as he or she saw fit. But government involvement with their lives would be virtually absent.

 

Who would choose to live under those conditions? They would tend to be the most self-reliant, independent, adaptive, and productive. That in itself argues for an industrious and hardy population of people who would resettle the area. A major attraction to the American taxpayer is that virtually no tax funds would be involved in the rebuilding effort. The foregone taxes are already lost, as the area is consuming tax funds now and won't be a tax provider for the foreseeable future. The displaced persons who are the recipients of tax relief now are going to be receiving tax relief under the present system whether the Gulf Coast is rebuilt or not. Certainly the immediate relief efforts are needed and the various private relief organizations I observed are doing a superb job and should be encouraged and supported (but not by government). But to expect that the government is going to rebuild New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast is to have faith in an institution that long since broke faith with the American people and continually shows its ineptitude, on a larger and larger scale as time goes by. It does one thing, and does it very well...it "eats out our sustenance" and exerts more power over us day by day. It can't improve things, but it can always make things worse. The only way New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast is going to recover from this unprecedented disaster is to allow the free enterprise system to do what it does best, create wealth, satisfy human needs, and improve the standard of living for all.

 

September 13, 2005

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Sep 15 2005, 07:23 AM

And those who were not busy looting were not merely pleading for help. They were angry. They were shouting into the cameras, addressing someone out there – the government? Us? – who they believed owed them an obligation to "get on down here" and bring them some stuff. Food, water, whatever they needed. Bring it to us – the message seemed clear – or we're just going to take it.

 

Americans were once a people proud of their relative self-sufficiency. Yes, we lend our neighbors a helping hand. But my family and the families of most Americans were essentially penniless 70 years ago. Since the Great Depression, we have worked and saved until we have some assets.

 

Quoted post

 

Fuck this douche Vin Suprynowicz ...If his city was wiped out tomorrow by an earthquake and he was stranded without food or water for days...what would he say to a camera man? Just because these N.O. people were on welfare and have been on welfare doesn't mean they are anything less than human or mean they don't deserve federal help.

[shai]

Yeah, you're losing me here, angel...There wasn't much hope to reduce the welfare rolls in NOLA, since there weren't enough jobs to go around.

 

There's something else...what about single mothers? How do they fit into this worldview? You can't have subsidized daycare, that's anathema to welfare reduction. A lot of single moms are fucked without AFDC.

 

I'm not sure that private industry would step in and do the right thing...the last time we let them try, there were children in coal mines and a factory workweek was considered sunup to sundown, Sunday off.

 

The idea is to create a balance so that there's help for those who need it, and work for those want it. Folks wouldn't have the option of being on relief because they felt like being unemployed. That's why I like workfare, in theory...in practice, it sucks because corporations supply the jobs and dictate hours and rates, which adds up to indentured servitude. And, it prevents the workfare recipient from finding better work since they have to show up to get their check...see where this is heading?

 

I'll look into this at work today. We have a law library I can check.

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Sep 15 2005, 07:08 AM

"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!@..$@! WAIT HE'S BLACK, OMG ANOTHER UNCLE TOM LIKE CLARENCE THOMAS!!!!!@..$)

 

Quoted post

 

 

i think socialism is doing ok in europe.

 

“The most important thing to me is to open up the welfare system to more people… Those of us who are well off must stop complaining about taxes.” Can you imagine an American politician saying that, even if that was what he was thinking? Probably not, but Lars Engqvist, Sweden’s Minister for Health and Social Affairs, says it loud and proud on the Swedish Government’s website, and most Swedes probably wouldn’t want it any other way.

 

unemployment at 5.6 %

and a 99% literacy rate

 

life expectancy is 79 years.

 

so no, i don't think this is evidence of a blatant record of failure.

otherwise these socialist countries would be collapsing by now.

[Stereotype V.001]

Not only is socialism doing ok in Europe, it has a wonderful European history!

 

I mean, who can forget about the National Socialist German Worker's Party? They got shit done! Sure, maybe a FEW unspeakable war crimes went on...but everyone makes mistakes!

 

Another guy who took that idea of socialism and ran with it?

BIG JOE!! He really demonstrated the finer points of socialism during his reign...err..I mean peaceful period of wonderful freedom. I heard they had some pretty sweet stats too. Them Ruskies can certainly live a long ass time.

 

"I'm not being oppressed! Yay socialism!!"

You see? Even the public loves it, and everyone's ideas are allowed to diffuse freely!

[fermentor666]

shai hulud: I'm not censoring the blowhard, I just got sick of reading all his drivel so I put him on my ignore list among the illustrious ranks of Tease and Theo Huxtable. I can't tolerate the kind of deafness and ignorance he portrays. I can already see that he posted 4 or something posts and they're probably all filled with the same condecending, insulting crap that he's been repeating for the whole thread, and frankly I'm happy that I can't read them.

 

And for fuck's sake stop calling me a liberal.

[fermentor666]

Socialism and Communism are not exactly the same thing, Communism is an much more specific form of Socialism.

 

 

And I don't think it's fair or wise to compare welfare, healthcare, social security, education funding, FEMA handouts, and raising the levees in New Orleans to the Nazi party or Stalin.

[fermentor666]

DailyKos:

 

 

 

This WaPo article provides a fair overview of just some of the costs of Katrina. Apparently, Rove Bush has decided to throw money at the problem hand over fist, in an attempt to deflect criticism over his administration's unforgivable bungling in the most critical days after the storm. But the last sentences of the article are so spectacularly representative of the entire new-conservative movement that they really stand as a monument to the whole disaster:

To reach $62 billion in savings, Cato Institute analysts Chris Edwards and Stephen Slivinski have proposed cutting NASA in half, slashing energy research and subsidies just as Congress is gearing up to increase them in the face of soaring gasoline prices, cutting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' budget by $4.6 billion after its levees failed to protect New Orleans, and eliminating $4.2 billion in homeland security grants while lawmakers are debating the nation's lack of preparedness.

A younger me would have marveled at the level of sheer square-headed poindexterism required to propose that, in order to finance the reconstruction of New Orleans... we further cut funding for the levees.

 

The slightly older me, however, recognizes that even think-tank poindexterism isn't really at play here. These people honestly don't give a crap about the American population. Doesn't enter their heads. Their agenda is so far removed from even basic logic that it can only be compared to a religion. Conservative is less government philosophy than it is Rich Man's Religion. Gotta Cut, if it doesn't affect me personally. Gotta Spend, if I get a piece of that pie. Gotta Proselytize, if it convinces the poor suckers over the county line to check the box next to my name. Gotta Vote the way the party tells me to, or the money spigot gets turned off.

 

So in Bush's speech tonight, we can expect to hear about a whole hell of a lot of money to be spent... and we can be assured that the money will continue to go to Bush-connected friends, not local businesses desperately in need of a way back on their feet.

 

We can expect to hear a word or two about 'responsibility', if the focus group said it was needed. Just the word; not a whit else. Not a peep about the now hardly-shocking revelations that maybe, just maybe, Bush sycophant Brown was merely one of a sea of other Bush appointees who, to a man, didn't have the slightest idea of how to respond to an actual emergency that didn't involve making sure the Presidential Backdrop was printed and delivered in time. And still doesn't.

 

The costs for rebuilding New Orleans are, indeed, going to be enormous. And given that the entire city is already being turned into a toxic trough for well-connected administration friends to feed at, I think we can expect the same level of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence that has been on display in every Bush-era issue from Enron and the California blackouts to the Iraq "reconstruction".

 

It would appear Karl Rove has successfully been rid of his kidney stones. We'll watch tonight to see the first results, but I don't expect the color of the pee to markedly change.

[Stereotype V.001]

"Socialism and Communism are not exactly the same thing, Communism is an much more specific form of Socialism."

 

Saying Socialism and Communism are different in any major way is proving this quote

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

-- Thomas Sowell

to be correct.

 

Sure, there might be some differences between Marxist/Leninist theories, the communist doctrine, Trotskyism, ect. But they all have the same foundation- control of the economy/collective ownership under an authoritarian government. It has good intentions, but unfortunately it leaves the door open for a totalitarian government. But people believe what they want, and history is doomed to repeat itself.

 

Maybe some of you should read "Animal Farm."

[fermentor666]

I did read Animal Farm, a couple of times, and I saw the movie when I was as young as six years old.

 

 

 

I'm not defending either Socialism or Communism at all, just drawing the distinction. Also, I still don't think you can compare social programs in this country with the Nazis.

[shai]

Originally posted by fermentor666@Sep 15 2005, 05:10 PM

shai hulud: I'm not censoring the blowhard, I just got sick of reading all his drivel so I put him on my ignore list among the illustrious ranks of Tease and Theo Huxtable. I can't tolerate the kind of deafness and ignorance he portrays. I can already see that he posted 4 or something posts and they're probably all filled with the same condecending, insulting crap that he's been repeating for the whole thread, and frankly I'm happy that I can't read them.

 

And for fuck's sake stop calling me a liberal.

Quoted post

If I caused you offense, I apologize. I'll try to set an example of civility on 12 oz. That's not ironic, that's sincere.

 

I think angel kind of lost me, too. But, we aren't going at it, so that's that.

 

And, I'm not talking trash, but...Stereotype, what exactly do you stand for? I can't figure it out. Little help here!

[fermentor666]

Nah, no offense taken.

[John Birch]

libertarians kinda confuse me. I respect some of the market stuff, but i don'ty understand why tehy think women shouldn't work, but should stay home and raise and school children. Supposedly this is based on "natural law" but which natural law? Many human societies are matriarchial, and women did most of the work in some of those. And I just watched a documentary about ice Age europe, and it turns out women did most of the hunting...

 

 

Libertarianism is just another code word for corporate based christian, white, male dominated right wingism... Real liberatrianism is essentially liberalism...

[shai]

"Real liberatrianism is essentially liberalism..."

 

That's exactly it. I took the test at the Libertarian Party site, and it said I am a Liberal Libertarian.

 

Liberal Libertarian? Is there such a thing? I read on, and found out that, yes, they indeed exist. As I said earlier, I have an affinity for some of their beliefs, but I don't buy anyone's ticket across the board. Nobody's perfect.

 

There are a lot of old, white, conservative Libertarians out there. I actually get along with a lot of them since I believe that personal responsibility, above anything else, could be the salvation of this country, and I don't think that this much government is here to help us, but help itself. I also happen to think social welfare programs are good for those who need them, however, and I don't think our borders should be completely opened to free trade, since prevailing wages in other countries would sink our ability to compete in the world market.

[SF1]

Originally posted by John Birch@Sep 16 2005, 05:02 AM

Libertarianism is just another code word for corporate based christian, white, male dominated right wingism...

Quoted post

No that's called Conservativeism (Republicanism). :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...I probably spelled something wrong in this post so here's a pre-emptive fuck you to the first douchebag that jumps all over it.

[SF1]

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Sep 15 2005, 11:36 PM

Not only is socialism doing ok in Europe, it has a wonderful European history!

 

I mean, who can forget about the National Socialist German Worker's Party? They got shit done! Sure, maybe a FEW unspeakable war crimes went on...but everyone makes mistakes!

 

Another guy who took that idea of socialism and ran with it?

BIG JOE!! He really demonstrated the finer points of socialism during his reign...err..I mean peaceful period of wonderful freedom. I heard they had some pretty sweet stats too. Them Ruskies can certainly live a long ass time.

 

"I'm not being oppressed! Yay socialism!!"

You see? Even the public loves it, and everyone's ideas are allowed to diffuse freely!

Quoted post

 

Whats funny (actually far from funny) is that this post reminds me of the direction America is headed. It starts with censorship and imprisonment and leads to niggas getting shot in the street for opposing the system. In fact "Animal Farm" reminds me of what America is turning into.

[SF1]

And it aint "Socialism" that lead to those problems that you mentioned, it's totalitarian dictatorship. That's what happens when people blindly listen to propoganda (just like Fox-news, MSNBC, etc, etc) and allow douchebags to trick them into giving them the power they need to enslave them. It HAPPENED to Socialism and it's HAPPENING to Democracy.

[angelofdeath]

stereotype is exactly right about socialism. it is essentially the step before communism.

 

" respect some of the market stuff, but i don'ty understand why tehy think women shouldn't work, but should stay home and raise and school children."

 

i dont think many libertarians today are like this. most are pretty damn liberal on social issues. essentially libertarians are anti offensive war, limited federal government, (hell some take the total antifederalist stance and pretty much want it abolished all together) and an unhindered free market.

 

all the articles i posted on this page, are from prominent libertarian authors. most real libertarians are hardcore anti new deal. to say that the libertarian party is the party of right wing christians is not true. most libertarians are not to keen on religious types.

 

everything i have said, is something a libertarian thinks. the only thing that keeps me out of the libertarian party is there platform, very well defined i might add, calls for open borders, and legalization of drugs. the border part, is essentially they think the free market needs to be unhindered with flow of goods, and that they dont want to give "the state" (read federal government) acknowledgment for owning their own property. they are firm believers in private property, which is the total opposite of socialism.

 

the sad thing about the libertarians, is with their ideology, which is essentially classical liberalism, is that it draws ignorant drug addicts who only join the party or call themselves "libratarians" because they want drug laws abolished, which if you knew libertarian ideology, you would know why.

 

 

there are prominent libertarians who are christians and anti abortion for example. Ron Paul, perhaps the most prominent libertarian in any kind of office today, as i have said before is my man. he is grade A 100% pro gun, and pro constitution. if you want an easy way to find out about libertarianism, google "ron paul archives" and read his articles.

 

conservatives of the Old Right, such as myself, have a natural alliance with libertarians, in respect to limited government as well as many other things. there are petty differences, but if the libertarians and conservatives in the vein of Pat Buchanan, unite, we would of more of a chance of getting the neo conservatives out of power.

 

look at supreme court nominees. most conservatives and libertarians want people who interpret the constitution, not make law. Justices like Scalia and Thomas, are constructionists (strict construction of the constitution) why does everyone hate them? because they want the federal government limited, the same way Jefferson and Madison did in 1788. they shoot for a strict interpretation of the supreme court. of course most people who dont understand things like the 10th amendment, get thier panties in a bunch and call them "racist" "homophobic" and on down the line. why? because they want social issues returned to the states, where they were intended, under the 10th amendment. my few libertarian friends are super gun nuts. as are nearly all libertarians. their platform calls for abolishing all gun laws that infringe on the people liberty.

 

You also have guys like shai hulud. they are not for super small federal government, and recognize some social programs. i submitted before, any kind of welfare should be the job of the states. everyone got thier panties all in a bunch and "put me on ignore" because they cant handle an opinion out of the main stream, and have no knowledge of what this country is about. they want socialism instead of a constitutional republic. exact opposites.

its a fucking message board. lighten up.

[shai]

The policy of social programs at the state level is already in effect, by and large, and yes, I think that's where they should be. States seem to serve the welfare of the people better, in most cases, since they aren't as removed as the feds are, and have a more realistic idea of what's going on locally.

 

I think the government is long overdue for a overhaul, but the pork keeps most legislators from rocking the boat, if not actively lobbying for the status quo. They may not be the most ethical bunch, but they are smart enough to know what side their bread is buttered on. I think it's hilarious when stories of rampant spending come to light, and no one seems to know who is responsible. Well, it's simple...painful, but simple...WE'RE responsible for most of the govenment we get. Sure, they will pad bills with extra funds for this and that lobby, but for the most part, I think if you see a snake in the grass and don't stay away from it, it's your fault when you get bitten. Don't blame city hall, the state, or the feds...they're just doing what they got elected to do.

[villain]

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Sep 15 2005, 08:08 PM

Sure, there might be some differences between Marxist/Leninist theories, the communist doctrine, Trotskyism, ect. But they all have the same foundation- control of the economy/collective ownership under an authoritarian government. It has good intentions, but unfortunately it leaves the door open for a totalitarian government. But people believe what they want, and history is doomed to repeat itself.

 

Quoted post

 

 

You post pictures of Hitler and call it communism? They were fascists. Nazis in Germany, Italian Fascists, Japanese Imperialism... Fascism. Extreme right wing fascism and extreme left wing totalitarian communism look very similar in the end. Just the means to absolute power are different. Fascists achieve it through unbridled private power and totalitarian communists achieve it through unbridled public power. The same end result: Dictatorship. The greatest threat to the US right now though is fascism since we are a capitalist nation. The power of capital echoes throughout the halls of power in the capitol. Already we suffer under an ideology of capitalist cronyism, and we are already making steps towards full on fascism with the unifying of private industries with federal functions (halliburton/fema; halliburton/iraq reconstruction; etc). Know the difference. The end result is the same, but the means to that end is different.

 

Angelofdeath: I believe you arouse the ire of this board because you have to same response to every situation. And quite predictably you are agreeing with the viewpoint that the people of NO should have had jobs. Well then why don't you give them jobs? You obviously have no idea what it means to be poor, black and angry. You are not a conservative of the old right, you are of the Old West. You think that any man can go forth and scratch out a living in this great land of the good old U.S. of A. Well I got news for ya buddy, this ain't the old west, all of the land within the political boundaries of the US is owned by someone, and the real issue these days is making sure the public and private sector provide equal opportunities for all because they have all of the power and might, not the individual, regardless of your belief in the ultimate power and responsibility bestowed upon individuals.

[angelofdeath]

Failure of an idea

... and a people

 

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

Posted: September 14, 2005

1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

 

© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.

 

 

In his 1935 State of the Union Address, FDR spoke to a nation mired in the Depression, but still marinated in conservative values:

 

"[C]ontinued dependence" upon welfare, said FDR, "induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

 

Behind FDR's statement was the conviction that, while the government must step in in an emergency, in normal times, men provide the food, clothing and shelter for their families.

 

 

And we did, until the war pulled us out of the Depression and a postwar boom made us, in John K. Galbraith's phrase, "The Affluent Society." By the 1960s, America, the richest country on earth, was growing ever more prosperous. But with the 1964 landslide of LBJ, liberalism triumphed and began its great experiment.

 

Behind the Great Society was a great idea: to lift America's poor out of poverty, government should now take care of all their basic needs. By giving the poor welfare, subsidized food, public housing and free medical care, government will end poverty in America.

 

At the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center, we saw the failure of 40 years of the Great Society. No sooner had Katrina passed by and the 17th Street levee broke than hundreds of young men who should have taken charge in helping the aged, the sick and the women with babies to safety took to the streets to shoot, loot and rape. The New Orleans police, their numbers cut by deserters who left their posts to look after their families, engaged in running gun battles all day long to stay alive and protect people.

 

It was the character and conduct of its people that makes the New Orleans disaster unique. After a hurricane, people's needs are simple: food, water, shelter, medical attention. But they can be hard to meet. People buried in rubble or hiding in attics of flooded homes are tough to get to. But, even with the incompetence of the mayor and governor, and the torpor of federal officials, this was possible.

 

Coast Guard helicopters were operating Tuesday. There were roads open into the city for SUVs, buses and trucks. While New Orleans was flooded, the water was stagnant. People walked through to the convention center and Superdome. The flimsiest boat could navigate.

 

Even if government dithered for days – what else is new – this does not explain the failure of the people themselves.

 

Between 1865 and 1940, the South – having lost a fourth of its best and bravest in battle, devastated by war, mired in poverty – was famous for the hardy self-reliance of her people, black and white.

 

In 1940, hundreds of British fishermen and yachtsmen sailed back and forth daily under fire across a turbulent 23-mile Channel to rescue 300,000 soldiers from Dunkirk. How do we explain to the world that a tenth that number of Americans could not be reached in four days from across a stagnant pond?

 

The real disaster of Katrina was that society broke down. An entire community could not cope. Liberalism, the idea that good intentions and government programs can build a Great Society, was exposed as fraud. After trillions of tax dollars for welfare, food stamps, public housing, job training and education have poured out since 1965, poverty remains pandemic. But today, when the police vanish, the community disappears and men take to the streets to prey on women and the weak.

 

Stranded for days in a pool of fetid water, almost everyone waited for the government to come save them. They screamed into the cameras for help, and the reporters screamed into the cameras for help, and the "civil rights leaders" screamed into the cameras that Bush was responsible and Bush was a racist.

 

Americans were once famous for taking the initiative, for having young leaders rise up to take command in a crisis. See any of that at the Superdome? Sri Lankans and Indonesians, far poorer than we, did not behave like this in a tsunami that took 400 times as many lives as Katrina has thus far.

 

We are the descendants of men and women who braved the North Atlantic in wooden boats to build a country in a strange land. Our ancestors traveled thousands of miles in covered wagons, fighting off Indians far braver than those cowards preying on New Orleans' poor.

 

 

Watching that performance in the Crescent City, it seems clear: We are not the people our parents were. And what are all our Lords Temporal now howling for? Though government failed at every level, they want more government.

 

FDR was right. A "spiritual disintegration" has overtaken us. Government-as-first provider, the big idea of the Great Society, has proven to be "a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

 

Either we get off this narcotic, or it kills us.

[angelofdeath]

Originally posted by villain@Sep 16 2005, 07:31 AM

 

 

Angelofdeath: I believe you arouse the ire of this board because you have to same response to every situation. And quite predictably you are agreeing with the viewpoint that the people of NO should have had jobs. Well then why don't you give them jobs? You obviously have no idea what it means to be poor, black and angry. You are not a conservative of the old right, you are of the Old West. You think that any man can go forth and scratch out a living in this great land of the good old U.S. of A. Well I got news for ya buddy, this ain't the old west, all of the land within the political boundaries of the US is owned by someone, and the real issue these days is making sure the public and private sector provide equal opportunities for all because they have all of the power and might, not the individual, regardless of your belief in the ultimate power and responsibility bestowed upon individuals.

Quoted post

 

ANIRCHY!

[villain]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Sep 16 2005, 07:36 AM

ANIRCHY!

Quoted post

 

 

BANNED!

 

 

So now you are going to post an article about how the people of NO are a bunch of criminals and got their just desserts. Even though looting to an extent has been justified by most people as survival, and the few nutjobs should not ruin it for everyone.

Just fucking say it. You hate black people and you want them to die. Right?

[angelofdeath]

dont you realize your talking to the same guy who argued with you a couple months ago about how ALL RACISM IS DISGUSTING, when you were trying to defend "reactionary racism"

[!@#$%]

wow this has careened wildly off topic

 

i will say though, i'm glad this is sparking some very real examination and intelligent debate.

 

i still think that socialism, alive and well in many parts of the world (of course coupled with democracy, you narrow minded libertarians) is doing a decent job...

 

and for chrissakes, i don't see how you can argue against that with a straight face when our neighbor to the north is doing pretty well for itself, with low crime, comparably, a decent job market and economy and no ongoing wars.

not too mention they've got the 'freedom' we think we have. anyone been to vancouver lately?

haha.

[SteveAustin]

somehow this got forwarded to me.

Here is what the Republicans are passing around to combat all the president bashing.

 

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

 

 

In case you aren't familiar with how our government is SUPPOSED to work: The chain of responsibility for the protection of the citizens in New Orleans is:

1. The Mayor

2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security (a political appointee of the Governor who reports to the Governor)

3. The Governor

4. The Head of Homeland Security

5. The President

What did each do?

1. The mayor, with 5 days advance, waited until 2 days before he announced a mandatory evacuation (at the behest of the President). Then he failed to provide transportation for those without transport even though he had hundreds of buses at his disposal.

2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security failed to have any plan for a contingency that has been talked about for 50 years. Then he blames the Feds for not doing what he should have done. (So much for political appointees)

3. The Governor, despite a declaration of disaster by the President

TWO DAYS BEFORE the storm hit, failed to take advantage of the offer of Federal troops and aid. Until TWO DAYS AFTER the storm hit.

4. The Director of Homeland Security positioned assets in the area to be ready when the Governor called for them

5. The President urged a mandatory evacuation, and even declared a disaster State of Emergency, freeing up millions of dollars of federal assistance, should the Governor decide to use it.

Oh and by the way, the levees that broke were the responsibility of the local landowners and the local levee board to maintain, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The disaster in New Orleans is what you get after decades of corrupt (democrat) government going all the way back to Huey Long.

Funds for disaster protection and relief have been flowing into this city for decades, and where has it gone, but into the pockets of the politicos and their friends.

Decades of socialist government in New Orleans has sapped all self reliance from the community, and made them dependent upon government for every little thing.

Political correctness and a lack of will to fight crime have created the single most corrupt police force in the country, and has permitted gang violence to flourish.

The sad thing is that there are many poor folks who have suffered and died needlessly because those that they voted into office failed them.

For those who missed item 5 (where the President's level of accountability is discussed), it is made more clear in a New Orleans Times-Picayune article dated August 28:

 

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -

In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray Nagin.

 

Acknowledging that large numbers of people, many of them stranded tourists, would be unable to leave, the city set up 10 places of last resort for people to go, including the Superdome.

The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already cancelled all flights.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.

The ball was placed in Mayor Nagin's court to carry out the evacuation order. With 5-day heads-up, he had the authority to use any and all services to evacuate all residents from the city, as documented in a city emergency preparedness plan. By waiting until the last minute, and

failing to make full use of resources available within city limits, Nagin and his administration goofed up.

Mayor Nagin and his emergency sidekick Terry Ebbert have displayed lethal, mind boggling incompetence before, during and after Katrina.

As for Mayor Nagin, he and his profile in pathetic leadership police chief should resign. That city's government is incompetent from one end to the other. The people of New Orleans deserve better than this crowd of clowns is capable of giving them.

If you're keeping track, these boobs let 569 buses that could have carried 33,350 people out of New Orleans - in one trip - get ruined in the floods. Whatever plan these guys had, it was a dud. Or it probably would have been if they'd bothered to follow it.

As for all the race-baiting rhetoric and Bush-bashing coming from prominent blacks on the left, don't expect Ray Nagin to be called out on the carpet for falling short.

 

You want to know why? Here's why:

It's more convenient to blame a white president for what went wrong than to hold a black mayor and his administration accountable for gross negligence and failing to fully carry out an established emergency preparedness plan.

To hold Nagin and his administration accountable for dropping the ball amounts to letting loose the shouts and cries of "Racism!" It's sad, it's wrong, but it's standard operating procedure for the media and left-wing black leadership.

Mark my words: you will not hear a word of criticism from Jesse Jackson Sr., Randall Robinson, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, or Kanye West being directed toward Clarence Ray Nagin Jr. Why? Because he is just another black politician instead of a responsible elected official who happens to be black. In the mindset of more-blacker-than-thou blacks, black politicians who are on their side can do no wrong.

[MAGS156]

GEORGE BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

he told me, I'm white shhhhhhhhhhh!

[RumPuncher]

 

We dont need your civil war......

[shai]

I haven't been to BC since I was a kid...nice city, though. One of the reasons I think Canada works well as a country is that it learned manners and diplomacy from the English, and we...what DID we do? There are examples of chivalry in American history, but they are woefully few and far between.

 

My grandmother, rest her soul, lived in Ontario when she was young. And, I learned a lot about respect and manners from her, usually by her example alone. She was one of the coolest and most insightful people I'll ever know, and she was respected by everyone, it seemed. I don't see a lot of that kind of integrity nowadays in the States, and it's sad. When you think about it, if the folks in charge and the "Religious Right" were really about the Christian ideals they claim to defend, we probably wouldn't be at war right now, the people of NOLA would have been taken care of a lot sooner, and the Bible's concept of charity would have instilled the sense of duty to see the way clear to make sure that the poor and infirm of all races or creeds would want for nothing. Imagine Dick Cheney giving 10% of his dividends from Halliburton to the people he claims to be there for. Imagine Bush realizing that his much-vaunted sense of duty to democracy shouldn't be forced upon a sovereign nation, and instead putting forth the effort (peaceably) to take care of the injustices and hardship that exist right here in America.

 

Most Americans suffer from a disconnect from the world at large, and it fosters greed that enables people to see driving SUVs and 99 cent Whoppers as God-given rights, and not as conveniences that comes on the backs of desperate folks who fight back only because they have nothing to lose.

 

By the way, I think socialism seems to work well when it's on a smaller scale, and comes from the will of the people to work cooperatively, and not the barrel of a gun. That's another blow to Libertarian Ideals, but it's the truth.