US GOVERNMENT FUCKS UP, PEOPLE DIE

[fermentor666]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Sep 9 2005, 08:44 PM

symbols,

hey i got you man.

i just couldnt let this "jab" go.

 

"These eleven congressmen, Republican conservatives all, just voted against the $51 billion package ( H. R. 3673) for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Horrible human beings, all."

 

i wanted to clear up the "spin" that is trying to take place on why certain "conservative republicans" voted nay.

Quoted post

 

 

 

Fuck that, and fuck all republicans. And many democrats, as well.

[angelofdeath]

yes fermentor, this situation is such a great example of "wow the feds did such a great job at this whole situtation, lets give them more power and more money to get the job done! YAY! our government is the best! republicans are so racist!"

[fermentor666]

No, it's a situation of "wow the feds did such a horrible job, the people in power now need to be replaced, more money needs to be given to get the job done, BOO, our government is FUBAR, republicans fucking suck". Basically.

[fermentor666]

By the way, don't ever try to put words in my mouth again, you fuck.

[fermentor666]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5090901135.html

 

Guard Stretched Between Katrina, Wars

 

By LIZ SIDOTI

The Associated Press

Saturday, September 10, 2005; 2:32 AM

 

WASHINGTON -- The National Guard is stretched so thin by simultaneous assignments in Iraq and the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast that leaders in statehouses and Congress say it is time to reconsider how the force is used.

 

Republicans and Democrats alike worry about the service's ability to balance its federal and state missions of fighting wars and responding to domestic crises.

 

"We need to look at what is going to be the long-term future of our Guard when states need to rely on these soldiers for emergencies and the nation continues to rely on them for overseas deployment," said Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat.

 

About 41,000 Guard members are scattered across Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, along with 17,000 active-duty troops. About 30,000 Guard members are serving in Iraq, with smaller numbers in Afghanistan, Kosovo and elsewhere overseas.

 

Since the storm devastated the deep South, Republicans and Democrats have praised the Guard for what may be the most massive U.S. military response to a domestic natural disaster.

 

But lawmakers also have questioned whether poor coordination between the federal government and the states _ and the overseas deployments _ kept the Guard from getting where it was needed quickly after the hurricane.

 

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, intends to review the Guard's hurricane relief performance this fall.

 

The head of the National Guard Bureau said Friday the assignment of thousands of Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana to Iraq delayed those states' initial hurricane response by about a day.

 

"Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, the bureau's chief.

 

However, Blum said that overall, the Iraq assignment is not limiting the military's ability to continue the rescue and recovery operations.

 

The Pentagon has said the response was swift and another 319,000 Army National Guard and Air National Guard personnel are available if needed.

 

Nevertheless, lawmakers worry about the short-term impact of the dual duty on the Guard's manpower and equipment availability and the long-term effect on recruitment and retention.

 

Guard Stretched Between Katrina, Wars

 

"All those things are going to become much bigger issues that we're going to have to address," said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, a Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

 

Another committee member, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., called Hurricane Katrina a wake-up call that will force Congress to re-evaluate "how do you maintain overseas deployment of significant numbers and still maintain a Guard force in the United States capable of responding to disasters?"

 

Some lawmakers say the responsibilities placed on the Guard now buttress their long-standing argument that the United States must permanently increase active-duty forces. But those lawmakers also acknowledge that's a tall order at a time of lagging recruitment.

 

"We're overextended worldwide," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. "We have too small an Army for the job that we're doing, yet we can't increase the size of the Army because it's volunteer and we can't enlist anybody."

 

The federal government has not always brought the Guard under its control for overseas military missions, choosing in many cases to leave the units in states to assist governors during civil disturbances and natural disasters.

 

But in recent years, the Pentagon has viewed the part-time citizen soldiers as a component of overall military operations and regularly sent Guard forces abroad, often for extended tours.

 

Governors and members of Congress have frequently questioned whether long active-duty tours harm recruitment, retention and soldiers' families.

 

Calling on the Guard for hurricane relief for an undetermined amount of time has intensified those concerns.

 

"Iraq and Afghanistan alone have been stressful," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "This doesn't make it any easier. And it probably makes it harder."

 

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, said the hurricane clearly adds strain. However, he said: "The level of catastrophe is so enormous it would tax us regardless" of whether or not the Guard was serving overseas.

 

President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld contend the military can handle the war and hurricane relief. But some lawmakers aren't convinced.

 

"It's pretty clear we have enough Guard people in the United States, but are they capable of handling our oversees commitments as well? We need to figure out how that impacts our ability in Iraq," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

[dumy]

Originally posted by fermentor666@Sep 10 2005, 03:09 PM

No, it's a situation of "wow the feds did such a horrible job, the people in power now need to be replaced, more money needs to be given to get the job done, BOO, our government is FUBAR, republicans fucking suck". Basically.

Quoted post

 

 

True Story

[angelofdeath]

No, it's a situation of "wow the feds did such a horrible job, the people in power now need to be replaced, more money needs to be given to get the job done, BOO, our government is FUBAR, republicans fucking suck".  Basically.

Quoted post

 

haha ass hat, yeah its all them evil repulicans. they purposely broke the levees which werent funded or repaired since 1965, everyone knew it was a problem, no one did anything. as a matter of fact, it was actually all bush's fault. it was all those evil racist republicans. i cannot actually believe after this situation, someone actually thinks that the federal government is capable. the reliance on the state is absolutely rediculous in this country. as soon as people realize this, it will be a turn for the better. or we could use the failed liberal ideology which has dominated this country since FDR. lets make the state 10 times as big, and we will be 10 times better off! hell, you dont even need to work with all the incentives to loaf around all day.

[PushbuttonWarfare]

I thought some individuals voted against the aid package because it didn't include any accountability for how the money would be spent, merely setting up a situation ripe for money not going where it should be?

 

FDR was the nigga.

[fermentor666]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Sep 11 2005, 01:52 AM

haha ass hat, yeah its all them evil repulicans. they purposely broke the levees which werent funded or repaired since 1965, everyone knew it was a problem, no one did anything. as a matter of fact, it was actually all bush's fault. it was all those evil racist republicans. i cannot actually believe after this situation, someone actually thinks that the federal government is capable. the reliance on the state is absolutely rediculous in this country. as soon as people realize this, it will be a turn for the better. or we could use the failed liberal ideology which has dominated this country since FDR. lets make the state 10 times as big, and we will be 10 times better off! hell, you dont even need to work with all the incentives to loaf around all day.

Quoted post

 

 

 

I started to read that, got to the part right in the beginning where you were being sarcastic about evil republicans and realized that it would only get more ignorant and me-me-me from there so I stopped. Notice how I'm not singling out a particular political view, but I AM SINGLING OUT PARTICULAR POLITICIANS.

 

IF THEY HAPPEN TO BE REPUBLICAN, WHICH IN THIS CASE THEY DO, AND THAT MAKES YOU UNCOMFORATABLE, THEN GOOD.

[fermentor666]

WANT TO REALLY SEE SOME REPUBLICAN HATRED?? HERE YOU GO YOU NINNY!!!

 

=========

 

38 percent

by kos

Sat Sep 10th, 2005 at 16:52:09 PDT

 

Newsweek Poll. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9280375/site/newsweek/ 9/8-9. MoE 4% (8/2-4 results)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

 

Approve 38 (42)

Disapprove 56 (51)

 

The president and the GOP's greatest hope may be, ironically, how deeply divided the nation remains, even after national tragedy. The president's Republican base, in particular, remains extremely loyal. For instance, 53 percent of Democrats say the federal government did a poor job in getting help to people in New Orleans after Katrina. But just 19 percent of Republicans feel that way. In fact, almost half of Republicans (48 percent) either believes the federal government did a good job (37 percent) or an excellent job (11 percent) helping those stuck in New Orleans.

 

The worse part for Bush -- trying to scare people about terrorism isn't working anymore. People have realized there are other scary things out there from which government is supposed to protect them, and their government -- Bush's government -- is incapable of doing so. Not to mention, if Bush couldn't manage a disaster we saw coming days in advance, how the hell would he manage one in which we'd have no advance notice?

 

So the hardcore Republican base won't leave Bush's side. They think he walks on water. And that's fine. Because their racist, uncaring, blame-the-victim rhetoric is showing the rest of the country exactly what "compassionate conservatism" looks like, and as Bush falls further into the 30s, it's obvious they don't like what they see.

 

Reflecting the tarnished view of the administration, only 38 percent of registered voters say they would vote for a Republican for Congress if the Congressional elections were held today, while 50 say they would vote for a Democrat.

 

There's that 38 percent again. This may be the floor. Bush may have finally hit rock bottom. If we can keep him there, we may be able to sweep out the whole lot of them from the Congressional leadership. Numbers like these will help recruit better candidates, raise more money, and create the sort of clear-cut distinctions between our side and theirs that voters can grasp on a gut level.

 

We need a government that can take care of Americans during national emergencies. And it looks like people have finally realize what we've known all along -- that Republicans can't govern.

 

 

======

 

 

THERE YA GO! BETTER START UP YOUR MILITIA IN THE WOODS WHILE YOU CAN!

[angelofdeath]

OH OH, you got me there cuz.

meaning how i love neo conservatives and all you know. once again, you demonstated your total and absolute knowledge of nothing.

lets see, i guess your including me in the "hardcore" republican crowd who thinks bush walks on water. i have denounced bush many times on here and am not a neo conservative.

so to clear up your narrow mind, the "hardcore" republicans are guys like ron paul and think bush can fuck some shit up and would never think of voting for a socialist. which from all the political quizzes that everyone took on here, damn near everyone fell into the socialist liberal spectrum.

 

damn i hate socialist commie nazi's.

[fermentor666]

YOU ASSUME I ASSUME.

[fermentor666]

 

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout...1103525,00.html

 

Ten days after Hurricane Katrina trashed the Gulf Coast, a radio talk-show host in Los Angeles asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice if it was true that President Bush does not care about black people. (She said no.) A man standing in the ruins in Gulfport, Miss., told the Vice President, "Go f___ yourself." (He smiled.) And the mayor of New Orleans secretly decamped for much of the week to Dallas to install his family there, refusing most media interviews, although the bodies had only begun to be counted in his drowned city.

 

Even as soldiers swarmed into the Gulf Coast and residents scattered onto dry land around the country, the anger at the government's response to Katrina did not abate. In a TIME poll of 1,000 adults nationwide, 52% said the government had done a poor job preparing for Katrina at all levels. And 62% said the government had responded too slowly to those hardest hit. In this sample at least, Americans did not single out blame but...

 

 

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

Also from that story which I don't have full access to, but kos posted:

 

 

 

The day the storm hit, [blanco] asked President Bush for "everything you've got." But almost nothing arrived, and she couldn't wait any longer. So she called the White House and demanded to speak to the President. George Bush could not be located, two Louisiana officials told Time, so she asked for chief of staff Andrew Card, who was also unavailable. Finally, after being passed to another office or two, she left a message with DHS adviser Frances Frago Townsend. She waited hours but had to make another call herself before she finally got Bush on the line. "Help is on the way," he told her.

[fermentor666]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash...n_broussard.mov

[POIESIS]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Sep 11 2005, 04:54 AM

from all the political quizzes that everyone took on here, damn near everyone fell into the socialist liberal spectrum.

 

+

 

damn i hate socialist commie nazi's.

 

=

 

 

Quoted post

[fermentor666]

It's so true.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by fermentor666@Sep 10 2005, 08:13 PM

By the way, don't ever try to put words in my mouth again, you fuck.

Quoted post

 

 

spoken like a true Bostonian

[shai]

Did anyone hear about the no-bid contract that Halliburton and its subsidiaries "won" to rebuild NOLA? Check these out.Maybe there's a connection between this and the federal funding cuts to levee maintenance...which is under the aegis of the Army Engineer Corps. It's definitely a new twist on the story....And, along with the race/class factor, one that should not go unnoticed.

 

As far as the conservative talk here goes- since I am a Libertarian, I am a fiscal, not a social, conservative....in the sense that I think that the states should tax their citizens according to their own individual needs, and give the feds a percentage of whatever is left over to cover funding for FEMA and the National Guard. That means that the states with a higher risk of extreme weather, earthquakes or other natural phenomena would be better equiped to handle disasters at a local level without having to rely on the feds as a first line of defense or relief.

 

To me, it seems like the government wants to legislate on state issues such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and redistricting without having accountability for greater issues, such as health care, poverty, or the enviroment.

 

I also don't think cutting the estate tax is going to help anyone except for the people that Bush represents. I never thought I would see the day where Social Darwinism Became Government Policy.

[angelofdeath]

"As far as the conservative talk here goes- since I am a Libertarian, I am a fiscal, not a social, conservative....in the sense that I think that the states should tax their citizens according to their own individual needs, and give the feds a percentage of whatever is left over to cover funding for FEMA and the National Guard. That means that the states with a higher risk of extreme weather, earthquakes or other natural phenomena would be better equiped to handle disasters at a local level without having to rely on the feds as a first line of defense or relief.

 

To me, it seems like the government wants to legislate on state issues such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and redistricting without having accountability for greater issues, such as health care, poverty, or the enviroment."

 

well put my friend. conservatives of the Old Right and libertarians are staunch allies in this respect. the social issues should be left to the states, period. (10th amendment)

 

i will say however, the estate tax should be cut, along with every other damn tax.

the tax plan you propose is proper, and i will add tariffs (though you probably wont see eye to eye on that) should used to fund the federal government, not taxing of the incomes of its citizens.

 

while i'll be the first to say, the levee's would fall under some federal funding, via the constitution, it should be the state's first to get the job done, and not relying on the federal government.

[angelofdeath]

"As far as the conservative talk here goes- since I am a Libertarian, I am a fiscal, not a social, conservative....in the sense that I think that the states should tax their citizens according to their own individual needs, and give the feds a percentage of whatever is left over to cover funding for FEMA and the National Guard. That means that the states with a higher risk of extreme weather, earthquakes or other natural phenomena would be better equiped to handle disasters at a local level without having to rely on the feds as a first line of defense or relief.

 

To me, it seems like the government wants to legislate on state issues such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and redistricting without having accountability for greater issues, such as health care, poverty, or the enviroment."

 

well put my friend. conservatives of the Old Right and libertarians are staunch allies in this respect. the social issues should be left to the states, period. (10th amendment)

 

i will say however, the estate tax should be cut, along with every other damn tax.

the tax plan you propose is proper, and i will add tariffs (though you probably wont see eye to eye on that) should used to fund the federal government, not taxing of the incomes of its citizens.

 

while i'll be the first to say, the levee's would fall under some federal funding, via the constitution, it should be the state's first to get the job done, and not relying on the federal government.

[fermentor666]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Sep 13 2005, 12:30 AM

"As far as the conservative talk here goes- since I am a Libertarian, I am a fiscal, not a social, conservative....in the sense that I think that the states should tax their citizens according to their own individual needs, and give the feds a percentage of whatever is left over to cover funding for FEMA and the National Guard. That means that the states with a higher risk of extreme weather, earthquakes or other natural phenomena would be better equiped to handle disasters at a local level without having to rely on the feds as a first line of defense or relief.

 

To me, it seems like the government wants to legislate on state issues such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and redistricting without having accountability for greater issues, such as health care, poverty, or the enviroment."

 

well put my friend. conservatives of the Old Right and libertarians are staunch allies in this respect. the social issues should be left to the states, period. (10th amendment)

 

i will say however, the estate tax should be cut, along with every other damn tax.

the tax plan you propose is proper, and i will add tariffs (though you probably wont see eye to eye on that) should used to fund the federal government, not taxing of the incomes of its citizens.

 

while i'll be the first to say, the levee's would fall under some federal funding, via the constitution, it should be the state's first to get the job done, and not relying on the federal government.

Quoted post

 

 

 

New Orleans is poor as fuck, Louisiana is poor as fuck. 30% of the people in New Orleans live below the poverty line, and the rest are just poor. Without federal funding, how are they supposed to fund programs like strengthening the levees or making the schools better (the drop-out rate is something like 40%, teachers down there don't even have to be certified)? Where would you suggest they get the money from?

 

I can't believe you support the elimination of the estate tax. This country is over 7 TRILLION dollars in debt. This is largely due to Bush's tax cuts and the war, among other things. Clinton left us with a SURPLUS. People forget this. The wealth in this country is held by a very small amount of people. Your logic is highly flawed, unless you support the private hording of money, class elitism, and large amounts of debt, which in turn would mean you support cutting funding to many essential programs in this country including education programs, disaster protection plans, health care, FEMA, etc.

 

One of the great things about this country is that it sticks together and does not leave people or states out in the cold. Of course, lately this has been a practice that has been dissapearing, and seemingly the only way out of it is by regime change. But, certainly not through cutting federal funding and leaving individuals and individual states to completely fend for themselves.

[8onus]

No, it's a situation of "wow the feds did such a horrible job, the people in power now need to be replaced, more money needs to be given to get the job done, BOO, our government is FUBAR, republicans fucking suck". Basically.

Quoted post

 

haha ass hat, yeah its all them evil repulicans. they purposely broke the levees which werent funded or repaired since 1965, everyone knew it was a problem, no one did anything. as a matter of fact, it was actually all bush's fault. it was all those evil racist republicans. i cannot actually believe after this situation, someone actually thinks that the federal government is capable. the reliance on the state is absolutely rediculous in this country. as soon as people realize this, it will be a turn for the better. or we could use the failed liberal ideology which has dominated this country since FDR. lets make the state 10 times as big, and we will be 10 times better off! hell, you dont even need to work with all the incentives to loaf around all day.

Quoted post

 

fuck you

FDR was hot shit, we need that nigga back!

 

and yes, republicans are racist, and the ones who arn't are classist. you are doing nothing but proving it, because obviously if you gave the state more funding all us welfare lovin po folk would just jump at the opportunity to slack off. fuck you once again.

[shai]

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Sep 12 2005, 05:30 PM

"As far as the conservative talk here goes- since I am a Libertarian, I am a fiscal, not a social, conservative....in the sense that I think that the states should tax their citizens according to their own individual needs, and give the feds a percentage of whatever is left over to cover funding for FEMA and the National Guard. That means that the states with a higher risk of extreme weather, earthquakes or other natural phenomena would be better equiped to handle disasters at a local level without having to rely on the feds as a first line of defense or relief.

 

To me, it seems like the government wants to legislate on state issues such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and redistricting without having accountability for greater issues, such as health care, poverty, or the enviroment."

 

well put my friend. conservatives of the Old Right and libertarians are staunch allies in this respect. the social issues should be left to the states, period. (10th amendment)

 

i will say however, the estate tax should be cut, along with every other damn tax.

the tax plan you propose is proper, and i will add tariffs (though you probably wont see eye to eye on that) should used to fund the federal government, not taxing of the incomes of its citizens.

 

while i'll be the first to say, the levee's would fall under some federal funding, via the constitution, it should be the state's first to get the job done, and not relying on the federal government.

Quoted post

IRS History and Structure

 

The agency has a long history. Its roots go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.

 

In 1913, the states ratified the 16th Amendment, which gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6% surtax on incomes of more than $500,000. As the nation sought greater revenue to finance the World War I effort, the top rate of the income tax rose to 77% in 1918. It dropped sharply in the post-war years, down to 24% in 1929, and rose again during the Depression. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.

 

This was taken from the website of our friends at the IRS.

 

At this point, I would not condemn any American who would refrain from paying FEDERAL, NOT STATE, tax, since it is obviously going to be spent much in the same way a teenager would blow his allowance on Friday night and be forced to mooch off of friends for the rest of the week. This is Jeffersonian logic in action, as he had the foresight to predict the error of having a centralized and omnipotent government that was out of touch with the people. Sound familiar? Read on.

 

The Federalists were in favor of Big Business and largely pro-British since that was where the money was. At that point, the US was rich in resources, but cash poor, so the Federalists proposed that a stronger centralized government and encouragement of industry was key to establishing the US as a world power both economically and politically. Most members of the Federalist party were wealthy landowners and merchants, as their interests were better represented than they would have been under Jefferson's Republican party, which eventually turned into the Democratic party.

 

I see no reason to NOT have a 50% luxury tax in this country. There would be less of an inducement to have more than you could spend in one lifetime...besides, how are you going to take it with you? The estate tax cut is simply going to benefit the people who have the most by screwing the people who have the least. It will effectively eliminate charitable organizations who see that part of the pie will go to those of us who get left behind.

[angelofdeath]

Originally posted by fermentor666@Sep 13 2005, 02:04 AM

New Orleans is poor as fuck, Louisiana is poor as fuck. 30% of the people in New Orleans live below the poverty line, and the rest are just poor. Without federal funding, how are they supposed to fund programs like strengthening the levees or making the schools better (the drop-out rate is something like 40%, teachers down there don't even have to be certified)? Where would you suggest they get the money from?

 

I can't believe you support the elimination of the estate tax. This country is over 7 TRILLION dollars in debt. This is largely due to Bush's tax cuts and the war, among other things. Clinton left us with a SURPLUS. People forget this. The wealth in this country is held by a very small amount of people. Your logic is highly flawed, unless you support the private hording of money, class elitism, and large amounts of debt, which in turn would mean you support cutting funding to many essential programs in this country including education programs, disaster protection plans, health care, FEMA, etc.

 

One of the great things about this country is that it sticks together and does not leave people or states out in the cold. Of course, lately this has been a practice that has been dissapearing, and seemingly the only way out of it is by regime change. But, certainly not through cutting federal funding and leaving individuals and individual states to completely fend for themselves.

Quoted post

 

 

 

look man, i understand your a liberal and what not, but atleast come at with me with SOME knowledge. have you read your constitution today? have you read it ever? the constitution very simply outlines what is and what is not the job of the federal government. the 10th amendment puts the powers not outlined in the constitution to the power of the states. in the constitution, it is outlined that internal improvements such as "post roads, canals" etc fall under federal jurisdiction. this does not leave the states exempt from this. if for example the feds dont have money to fund this a certain year or whatever, then the state should take up the slack, no questions asked.

 

no where in the constitution is there mentioning of federal control and funding of schools, there is no mention of welfare and handouts. if this is going to be handled at all, it should be AFTER the constitutional guarantees are taken care of, but properly, left to the states.

 

the federal government, since its inception, to its first income tax, was ran off of tariff revenue. it was small and frugal, and saw the US rise from a small agrarian republic to a world manufacturing super power. all with out income tax. (except lincolns war tax and clevelands 2% flat tax, which was struck down as unconstitutional) the states, under the 10th amendment would have power to collect income taxes from its citizens, and fund the feds if they saw fit. with this system, we ran surplus's every year.

 

i support eliminating all forms of federal welfare, social security, dept of ed, and on down the line. this is not the job of the federal government, it would be the job of the states, if at all. reliance on the federal government, IS THE MAIN problem with the US today. it creates pawns and victim societies and mentalities. there is no incentive to work at mc donalds, when after all you can sit at home and collect your welfare check for free and get paid more.

 

I am not infavor of cutting defense and other areas the feds have jurisdiction under the constitution. this is one area, they are supposed to have control of.

 

in conclusion, bush's tax cuts, kept the US out of recession, which would affect "the poor" worse. federal income tax should be eliminated all together, as should taxes on capital gains, death taxes and on down the line. do you realize what we went to war with over england? the federal government brings nothing but tyranny over the people.

 

with a revenue tariff back in place, and our economic nationalism back on top, sovereignty restored, our debts would vanish. as would government reliance.

in short, pull out your constitution, and read it.

 

as a founding father said..."the government which governs the best, governs the least."

[angelofdeath]

"fuck you

FDR was hot shit, we need that nigga back!

 

and yes, republicans are racist, and the ones who arn't are classist. you are doing nothing but proving it, because obviously if you gave the state more funding all us welfare lovin po folk would just jump at the opportunity to slack off. fuck you once again. "

 

i wonder why FDR gets a free pass for racially profiling and rounding up all the JApanese and putting them in internment camps? learn some fucking history "nigga."

[!@#$%]

yeah but, like i said before, the federal government supports programs, such as medical research and space exploration

like them or not, these are burdens that cannot be handled by the state.

and society still needs them

 

its all well and good to say the federal government should only fund the military when you come from a background that clearly has given you no taste of poverty

 

when a person is born into poverty, they are born dependent.

no state program alone is going to fix these issues, obviously, or else the state would already be doing it.

 

the federal government is obviously bloated and needs to be reigned in,

but eliminating all federal control does not always have a positive impact.

all you have to do is look at the self-governance of corporations to see that people cannot be trusted to have organizations and companies that play by the rules and states are not powerful enough to do battle with these overgrown giants

[angelofdeath]

symbols. you seem to atleast understand the basics. in my opinion, there is nothing the feds can do that the private sector cant do better.

 

anyway... my man ron paul.

 

Responding to Katrina

 

 

by Ron Paul

 

 

 

Texans and all Americans have responded wonderfully to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, opening their wallets and their homes to help displaced victims. Private donations already have topped $600 million. This outpouring shows there is hope for rebuilding and breathing life back into New Orleans and other destroyed communities, if the American entrepreneurial spirit is permitted to operate freely.

 

When it comes to government relief efforts for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, Congress must be very careful with the nearly $52 billion dollars approved last week – almost all of which goes to FEMA. The original $10 billion authorized by Congress for hurricane relief was spent in a matter of days, and there is every indication that FEMA is nothing but a bureaucratic black hole that spends money without the slightest accountability. Any federal aid should be distributed as directly as possible to local communities, rather than through wasteful middlemen like FEMA. We cannot let the Katrina tragedy blind us to fiscal realities, namely the staggering budget deficits and national debt that threaten to devastate our economy.

 

Why does Congress assume that the best approach is simply to write a huge check to FEMA, the very government agency that failed so spectacularly? This does not make sense. We have all seen the numerous articles detailing the seemingly inexcusable mistakes FEMA made – before and after the hurricane. Yet in typical fashion, Congress seems to think that the best way to fix the mess is to throw money at the very government agency that failed. We should not be rewarding failure.

 

Considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the federal and state level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood would no doubt be better off if relief money simply was sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous troubling examples of private organizations and individuals attempting to help their fellow Americans in so many ways over the last ten days, only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for days by government red tape. We have seen in previous disasters how individuals and non-governmental organizations were often among the first to pitch in and help their neighbors and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending these good Samaritans a troubling message: stay away, let us handle it.

 

The examples of FEMA blocking relief efforts are numerous: Wal-Mart trucks containing water and supplies were turned away; the Coast Guard was prevented from delivering diesel fuel; a 600-bed Navy hospital was left unused; firefighters were ordered away from flood sites; donated generators were refused; and rescue attempts by private citizens were rebuffed. Is FEMA really an agency that should be given another $50 billion?

 

In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have told me many times that they prefer to rebuild and recover without the help of federal agencies like FEMA, which so often impose their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners of private property.

 

Once again the federal government is attempting to impose a top-down solution to the disaster. No one questions where this $52 billion will come from. The answer, of course, is that the federal government simply is going to print the money. There will be no reductions in federal spending elsewhere to free up this disaster aid. Rather, the money will come from a printing press. The economic devastation created by such a reckless approach may well be even more wide-reaching than the disaster this bill is meant to repair.

 

We should consider more constructive ways to help New Orleans and the other affected areas recover from this tragedy. There are numerous approaches, such as the creation of tax-free enterprise zones, which would attract private capital to the area and result in a much quicker and more responsive recovery. Katrina’s victims and the rest of the country deserve a more sustainable and financially rational approach than simply printing and spending money.

 

September 13, 2005

 

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[!@#$%]

yes yes, this is one of those situations that is epitomizing the inefficacy of the federal government, so sad indeed that it has cost lives.

 

it seems to be true, that the government is completely inept at social programs.

why this is could be an endless debate

but there has been a total breakdown of what our current gov't loves to refer to as "homeland security" ..it really is just an idea that has no relationship to reality

 

i have no expectation that people will benefit from further gov't intervention in this case

but i hope it sparks an intense examination of our current resources in disaster control, rather than fading from attention as time passes (as it already seems to be doing)

 

the private sector, in bed with the federal government, is probably going to make a killing off of this disaster while providing minimal local benefit

fucking Halliburton

i don't trust that company as far as i could throw it

and being that they are such good buddies with the fools in power,

i am left feeling fucking frustrated and exasperated

[fermentor666]

Originally posted by angelofdeath+Sep 13 2005, 12:35 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (angelofdeath - Sep 13 2005, 12:35 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-fermentor666@Sep 13 2005, 02:04 AM

New Orleans is poor as fuck, Louisiana is poor as fuck. 30% of the people in New Orleans live below the poverty line, and the rest are just poor. Without federal funding, how are they supposed to fund programs like strengthening the levees or making the schools better (the drop-out rate is something like 40%, teachers down there don't even have to be certified)? Where would you suggest they get the money from?

 

I can't believe you support the elimination of the estate tax. This country is over 7 TRILLION dollars in debt. This is largely due to Bush's tax cuts and the war, among other things. Clinton left us with a SURPLUS. People forget this. The wealth in this country is held by a very small amount of people. Your logic is highly flawed, unless you support the private hording of money, class elitism, and large amounts of debt, which in turn would mean you support cutting funding to many essential programs in this country including education programs, disaster protection plans, health care, FEMA, etc.

 

One of the great things about this country is that it sticks together and does not leave people or states out in the cold. Of course, lately this has been a practice that has been dissapearing, and seemingly the only way out of it is by regime change. But, certainly not through cutting federal funding and leaving individuals and individual states to completely fend for themselves.

Quoted post

 

 

 

look man, i understand your a liberal and what not, but atleast come at with me with SOME knowledge. have you read your constitution today? have you read it ever? the constitution very simply outlines what is and what is not the job of the federal government. the 10th amendment puts the powers not outlined in the constitution to the power of the states. in the constitution, it is outlined that internal improvements such as "post roads, canals" etc fall under federal jurisdiction. this does not leave the states exempt from this. if for example the feds dont have money to fund this a certain year or whatever, then the state should take up the slack, no questions asked.

 

no where in the constitution is there mentioning of federal control and funding of schools, there is no mention of welfare and handouts. if this is going to be handled at all, it should be AFTER the constitutional guarantees are taken care of, but properly, left to the states.

 

the federal government, since its inception, to its first income tax, was ran off of tariff revenue. it was small and frugal, and saw the US rise from a small agrarian republic to a world manufacturing super power. all with out income tax. (except lincolns war tax and clevelands 2% flat tax, which was struck down as unconstitutional) the states, under the 10th amendment would have power to collect income taxes from its citizens, and fund the feds if they saw fit. with this system, we ran surplus's every year.

 

i support eliminating all forms of federal welfare, social security, dept of ed, and on down the line. this is not the job of the federal government, it would be the job of the states, if at all. reliance on the federal government, IS THE MAIN problem with the US today. it creates pawns and victim societies and mentalities. there is no incentive to work at mc donalds, when after all you can sit at home and collect your welfare check for free and get paid more.

 

I am not infavor of cutting defense and other areas the feds have jurisdiction under the constitution. this is one area, they are supposed to have control of.

 

in conclusion, bush's tax cuts, kept the US out of recession, which would affect "the poor" worse. federal income tax should be eliminated all together, as should taxes on capital gains, death taxes and on down the line. do you realize what we went to war with over england? the federal government brings nothing but tyranny over the people.

 

with a revenue tariff back in place, and our economic nationalism back on top, sovereignty restored, our debts would vanish. as would government reliance.

in short, pull out your constitution, and read it.

 

as a founding father said..."the government which governs the best, governs the least."

Quoted post

[/b]

 

 

 

 

I stopped taking you seriously as soon as you said I was a liberal. I might not like republicans but that does not make me a liberal. I don't define my political views by a label, I just support what I think is best for the country. Cutting welfare, education, social security funds, health care, and enviromental programs is not the solution. Maintaining the belief that the federal government should only fund defense makes you a BLOWHARD.

 

Bush may have kept us out of a recession in the short term, but by putting us trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt after inheriting a surplus from Clinton ( http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...linton.surplus/ ) means that a recession will be coming at some point. Particularly with the price of gas, a major neccessity for many Americans, on the rise (no matter how much you say you don't need it, there's millions of people that depend on their cars to get to work and to travel). You can blame that on Katrina, but remember that prices were hovering just under 3 dollars before the hurricane was even a thought.

 

Maybe it would be to your benefit to cut estate taxes, maybe you stand to inherit a fortune from your family and don't want to government digging it's fingers into your future wealth. Obviously, you won't ever have to think about depending on welfare since you feel like cutting it, so that makes it probable but not definite that you are wealthy. Which makes you in a small minority of the American public and I thank god that there aren't a majority of people like you voting because your opinions and ideas are flawed and would damage this country beyond repair, making it similiar to third world countries where there is no middle class, only a couple of rich guys and a whole shitload of poor people.

 

And I'm not a liberal, so you can get that idea out of your head. Blowhard.

[fermentor666]

By the way, I'm sorry if you don't want your fucking money going to help fund social programs. But this is fucking America, that's the way it's done, and if you don't like it then get the fuck out and take your pony-prize money with you.