[quote]doogie wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
What are you basing that on? How long did it take FEMA to get really rolling after Hurricane Andrew?
[/quote]
It took three whole days, which was exactly what caused Clinton to tighten ship there. Subsequently, they did much, much better.
But since the importance of FEMA’s prepardness was a lesson learned by Clinton, it could not be taught to Bush, except in the school of hard knocks.
Just like with the danger of terrorism.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
doogie wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
What are you basing that on? How long did it take FEMA to get really rolling after Hurricane Andrew?
It took three whole days, which was exactly what caused Clinton to tighten ship there. Subsequently, they did much, much better.
[/quote]
Subsequently when? I’m trying to remember any big disasters that FEMA handled (other than the Mississippi River floods) during Clinton’s term.
http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1126680388948.Larsson_Midvinterblot_detail[1].jpg
Hmmm, we used to sacrifice the responsible guy…
[quote]doogie wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
doogie wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
What are you basing that on? How long did it take FEMA to get really rolling after Hurricane Andrew?
It took three whole days, which was exactly what caused Clinton to tighten ship there. Subsequently, they did much, much better.
Subsequently when? I’m trying to remember any big disasters that FEMA handled (other than the Mississippi River floods) during Clinton’s term.
[/quote]
Bingo, only one year after Andrew, in 1993, when the Mississippi flooded large portions of the midwest. FEMA proved the worth of the new resourcing, plans, and procedures that had been put into place.
There were also Hurricanes Fran and Opal. For Fran (1996) which was at the high end of category 3, about half a million people were evacuated.
Fortunately, really large disasters don’t happen all that often. One could wish organizational memory would hang onto something for maybe just a decade or so, when it’s time for the next one. But no-o-o-o.
[quote]tumbeh wrote:
I was in New Orleans last spring for the first time. It’s was a fucking third world shithole last June. I was not shocked at all that this happened. The government sure as hell wasn’t helping these people before Katrina.[/quote]
Actually it was, and that is the problem.
The attempt at helping people by giving them stuff is a disaster.
I understand the urge to help people, but everyone keeps forgetting that the hard days are what motivate a person to make things better. If you take away the hard days, you take away many people’s motivation.
Ever see a child who is mothered? Protected from any pain? They often go in two different directions. Either they rebel, and become real jerks, or they are incapable of dealing with the real world, and end up never getting anywhere.
Sometimes all you are doing is protecting people from the school of hard knocks. There are a lot of people who need those knocks, and that school.
Oh yeah, one other thing nobody seems to get. If you rely of the government to support you, they own you.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
But we must also consider the scope and magnitude here. This is 100 times bigger than 9/11 and noone would have been completely prepared for the sheer massiveness of the job to be undertaken[/quote]
What feeble apologetics. They damned well should have been prepared, and after this they had bloody well better get ready finally. In terms of the number of people displaced, this is just about the scale of your basic ‘dirty bomb’ scenario. In terms of casualties and economic loss, it is about on a par with a fission bomb going off in an urban center.
Either of these scenarios is, regrettably, now well within the realm of the possible.
[quote]hspder wrote:
You’re the one using rhetoric. I’m using math and common sense. If you cut a tax “across the board”, it’s ALWAYS the rich people that get the most benefit of it, it’s asinine to point out that “well, the relative cut was the same for all”.[/quote]
I never suggested anything to the contrary. That was exactly my point. With a tax cut across the board, the wealthy’s cut will always result in more money than someone with a lower income, all based on math. That also explains why they pay more in on April 15.
But that doesn’t demonstrate that Bush ‘cut taxes for the rich’ in that he purposely targeted rich people for tax relief but left the rest of the taxpayers high and dry.
So the tax cuts actually made poor people go hungry?
[quote]hspder wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Like how much more? The rich should pay 50+% of their income in taxes, while the poor pay -10% of their income? How does punishing the achievers help anything?
I’m really tired of that Right-Wing BS.
I won’t waste too much time on this, other than saying:
a) The rich do NOT pay 50+% of their income in taxes – you have no idea how rampant tax evasion is
and
b) Most rich people are not “achievers”. The overwhelming majority either inherited the money, are career criminals, are slave drivers, or amassed their fortune at the expense of society as a whole through pyramid schemes (aka speculators). Not all of them of course, but the overwhelming majority (about 95% according to the latest numbers I have) is part of one of those groups.
Most “achievers” find themselves in the upper middle class, they never really become very rich.
There’s another thing that one of the superb articles above touches that is fundamental: the consumers – the people that make the economy work – and the people that actually add value by performing the actual work – are usually in the middle and lower classes. Rich people usually take a LOT more out of the economy – literally, because a huge part of their money is put outside the US, to escape taxes and other “problems”, and another part is used to fuel speculation – than what they put in. That’s how they become… rich: by taking a lot more than what they put in. The people that make the money machine move, and help it create wealth are usually the ones that end up with little or no money.
Actually, a friend and colleague of mine has once in a conference proved that rich people drive inflation almost all (about 80% of it) by themselves in modern US economy.
Make no mistake: very rich people leech the economy, and the only positive purpose they serve is to give people like you the illusion you can become rich too. Which is a purpose that is fundamental, mind you (I’m no Bolshevik!)-- the trick is to allow them to serve that purpose but, at the same time, curb their leeching of the economy.[/quote]
who are you consulting for? A group pursuing Marxism? Yes you may be a Bolshevik!
How do you account for self-made men or do they not fit into your reality.
Sorry this is really funny to me…and don’t worry you aren’t able to pull rank on me so save the self marketing.
Reddog,
The thing that makes it more complex is the use of the word “fair”. A simple percentage value does not get into the complexities of a persons situation.
Again, I’m in favor of a flat tax (or no tax), but it isn’t really any more fair than any other tax system. Fair involves a moral judgement which can include a lot more than simple math.
Very thought provoking thread and I post here with a little apprehension.The total tax burden on the average household income has increased to the point that we pay more now than when we seceded from england. state, local, federal, sales, property, fuel, phone has more of a burden on the lower income brackets than the upper.I will say that the return of the deduction for sales tax on the federal income tax has helped those who were aware of it is a step in the right direction.Are biggest problem is loss of production of goods in our economy.
Many of the problems associated with the slow deteration in our economy are the direct result that we have a bigger population and fewer well paying jobs.The slow bleeding of industry will eventualy leave us with the inability to survive the burden of our federal expenduture the first sign of this is social security problem the next will be the tax base loss.If we continue to believe that we can buy foriegn made products and not produce equal amounts of our own goods we have a problem.
The largest single employer in the usa does not produce anything except debt.Our own federal government.To some degree we as production force have been the cause of this inflation and higher pay go hand in hand and we are slowly pricing are selves out of the job markets.
just an opinion and I am more than open for critcsism on my view points
[quote]tumbeh wrote:
…
I was in New Orleans last spring for the first time. It’s was a fucking third world shithole last June. I was not shocked at all that this happened. The government sure as hell wasn’t helping these people before Katrina.[/quote]
No joke. Between the corruption and the prevalant welfare state it is no wonder New Orleans was so poverty stricken.
If the tax cuts are so bad, why did government income due to taxes acheive its highest levels ever this summer?
Because the tax cuts did exactly what they are supposed to do, stimulate and grow the economy.
All the debate about the rich, how they earned or inherited their money does not matter one bit.
Tax cuts work.
WAKE UP!!!
Did you happen to notice that Bush’s approval rating was at a all time low the week prior to him taking full responsibility. The republicans are looking really bad right now with all that is going on, so to take responsibility would only help their cause and make them look better. For the people and all that when in reality they couldn’t give a hoot what happens to the people. If the same thing had happened in Palm Beach there would be water, food and plenty of help.
Think about it!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If the tax cuts are so bad, why did government income due to taxes acheive its highest levels ever this summer?
[/quote]
Total tube steak boogie. Spending money like water on a useless war revved up the economy, not tax cuts for the rich.
I guess Bush must have really screwed the pooch this time. Lookit all the Bush babies go off topic.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If the tax cuts are so bad, why did government income due to taxes acheive its highest levels ever this summer?
Total tube steak boogie. Spending money like water on a useless war revved up the economy, not tax cuts for the rich.[/quote]
I agree with this. I am not an “economist” like so many claim to be in this thread, but to ignore the war in Iraq and blame any growth on tax cuts is just retarded.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
I guess Bush must have really screwed the pooch this time. Lookit all the Bush babies go off topic.[/quote]
And look at all the Bush haters responses.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If the tax cuts are so bad, why did government income due to taxes acheive its highest levels ever this summer?
Total tube steak boogie. Spending money like water on a useless war revved up the economy, not tax cuts for the rich.[/quote]
100% wrong. Tax income was up because consumer spending was up.
War is wasteful and does not help economies (inspite of the misconception people have of WWII).
Use the “tube steak boogie” for the junior high school bullshit.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
I guess Bush must have really screwed the pooch this time. Lookit all the Bush babies go off topic.
And look at all the Bush haters responses.[/quote]
It’a your (collective your) stupid, denial-sunken posts I hate, not Bush. He’s just a poor little rich kid who unfortunately happened to be born into one of our dynastic families (what’s that, you say democracies don’t have dynastic families?)
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If the tax cuts are so bad, why did government income due to taxes acheive its highest levels ever this summer?
Total tube steak boogie. Spending money like water on a useless war revved up the economy, not tax cuts for the rich.
100% wrong. Tax income was up because consumer spending was up.
War is wasteful and does not help economies (inspite of the misconception people have of WWII).
Use the “tube steak boogie” for the junior high school bullshit.
[/quote]
So, why was consumer spending up? Why do you never complete the analysis? Sounds like high school logic to me, Mr. Sophomore.