Lessons from Katrina

[No-name]

This is just a bump in light of Mike Brown's testimony today and the savage rebukes he got from the republican congressmen asking the questions.

The guy is still getting paid. Full salary.

 

[WHEATTHlNS]

He's getting paid wages as a result of consultancy work. As far as I'm concerned considering the hatchet job done on him its the least that could be done.

 

[No-name]

Well those Republican congressmen sure seem to enjoy dragging the poor yet possibly incompetent guy through the mud. It is good to know he has one supporter that isn't directly related to him.

 

[Miss_apollo7]

What I think is interesting is the fact that President Bush and the Republican majority in the Congress want to cut about 50 billion dollars from important social benefits programmes, and give tax reduction to the most wealthy in the U.S. In other words, the poor people are paying for what Katrina did. Correct me if I am wrong, but in my opinion, the U.S. Government has let down millions of poor people, especially the poorest of Katrina's victims who have lost their homes. Although Bush uttered that unlimited amount of money should be spent on rebuilding New Orleans, he was met with opposition from the Republican lawmakers - who didn't want to increase the deficit on the budget.

I can see that tax reduction for the wealthy can have its positive effects, e.g. more spending - which can create jobs etc...however, I can't help thinking about a more direct concern for the poorest..

I am not saying that Bush isn't doing anything - I know that FEMA is helping the victims and money is spent on accommodating the victims in hotels etc..

Anyway, this is just my thoughts.... :wave:

 

[Mike Cash]

The "poor people" aren't paying for what Katrina did.....or almost anything else, for that matter.

As for the 50 billion of cuts in social spending.....read this and learn about baseline budgeting. You're falling for one of the left's favorite techniques of vilifying the Republicans.

 

[No-name]

The rich pay most of the taxes and so benefit whenever taxes are cut.

The poor pay in so many other ways, especially when natural disasters hit.

 

[Miss_apollo7]

The "poor people" aren't paying for what Katrina did.....or almost anything else, for that matter.

As for the 50 billion of cuts in social spending.....read this and learn about baseline budgeting. You're falling for one of the left's favorite techniques of vilifying the Republicans.

I am not saying that poor people are paying more tax, instead, they are paying by having their social benefits cut.

My sources are based from CNN, not entirely unbiased I know, but my assumptions are based from CNN - that's it. If I had my sources from FOX, I would say something else.. :blush: E.g. read http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/18/katrina.cost/

 

[Mike Cash]

I am not saying that poor people are paying more tax, instead, they are paying by having their social benefits cut.

I take it you didn't learn about baseline budgeting, in which even spending increases can be painted as drastic cuts when the opposition finds it politically beneficial to do so.

Please point out to me which social benefits are going to be budgeted next year at a lower level than this year.

 

[Miss_apollo7]

I take it you didn't learn about baseline budgeting, in which even spending increases can be painted as drastic cuts when the opposition finds it politically beneficial to do so.

Please point out to me which social benefits are going to be budgeted next year at a lower level than this year.

Next time, please be kind although I don't agree with you, e.g. your comment: "I take it you didn't learn about baseline budgeting, in which even spending increases (...)". I don't like your patronising attitude just because my ideas are different than yours. I know what it (baseline budgeting) means in a company or a government - I have gone to school you know! I normally enjoy reading your posts Mikecash, however, your patronising sentence here, really surprised me.

Sadly, my references are not all from the internet, but from newspapers (mostly Danish), and watching BBC or, CNN. I have searched the BBC news' archives and CNN's - and they don't post everything they say on TV on their websites. However, I know I have read an article written by W.Spriggs, which was printed by the Economic Policy Institue (which might be biased since it is from a Democratic point of view but still very interesting.)

Then, there is the words of one my favourite former Presidents: :blush:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/katrina.clinton/index.html

According to an analysis by Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), (QUOTE) "the President?fs budget proposes a 16 percent ($214 billion) cut in domestic discretionary spending between 2006 and 2010, outside of homeland security. Among other areas, these cuts are slated to occur in education, training, and income security. It is estimated that as many as 300,000 working poor could lose food stamps; the same number of children are projected to lose childcare subsidies. Cuts in education services to adults would affect 470,000 persons. As many as 671,000 could fall off the roles of the WIC Program (a nutrition and health program for women, infants, and children); 370,000 fewer households could get Section 8 housing vouchers; and 360,000 could lose low-income home energy assistance. (...)"

www.cbpp.com

 

[Mike Cash]

I am at a loss to understand how you found any part of my post patronizing.

I find that the Department of Health and Human Services will, under the proposed budget, face a cut of $300 million to its discretionary spending......which will still be $68.9 billion.....while the department's total budget will get a $58 billion increase to $642 billion.

 

[Miss_apollo7]

:116:

I am at a loss to understand how you found any part of my post patronizing.

OK, I will quote you:

I take it you didn't learn about baseline budgeting(...).

This latter sentence to me is patronising....commenting on learning abilities....when in fact I know what it means. It is insulting when I am in the position I am in.

If I had the time and was given the a complete fact-list of the fiscal budget of next year, instead of discussing this based on what I heard and saw on CNN, I am more than willing to discuss further and can perhaps elaborate further (if I was paid for doing this extra work !). However, I think I want to spend my leisure time on something more fun.... Cat-fights I don't like. :116:

I think these last posts are going off-topic, as now we are discussing the specifics in the fiscal budgets. You asked about the social benefits being cut, and I replied that e.g. the foodstamps are still lesser in amount next year, and my point was that I agree with Clinton's utterances regarding aid for victims of Katrina and the the role of the US fiscal budget. Can't I agree with Clinton and other Democrats?

 

[Mike Cash]

I haven't said a word about Clinton, whether to suggest that you should or should not agree with him.

I suspect that one reason for cuts in food stamps is that the current budget is not being fully utilized. A great many people who are eligible don't take advantage of it. This despite an active advertising campaign to educate potential recipients.

The sentence you took offense to wasn't meant to call into question your intelligence but rather to speculate that you didn't view the link I provided. If you're familiar with baseline budgeting, then you're also aware that one should be very circumspect when people not currently in power start yelling about cuts to their pet programs.

 

[Miss_apollo7]

The sentence you took offense to wasn't meant to call into question your intelligence but rather to speculate that you didn't view the link I provided.

OK, you are forgiven. I did in fact read the link you mentioned.

]If you're familiar with baseline budgeting, then you're also aware that one should be very circumspect when people not currently in power start yelling about cuts to their pet programs.

I know, but that is the game in politics, in every government which has an opposition.

It is like when politicians (or others for that matter) refer to statistics to prove their point. Statistics are even not 100% reliable; depending on who made the statistics, and the input/data provided to make the stats.

Concerning those foodstamps and related subjects within the area of social benefits, it seems that social priorities are not prioritised in general. (As compared to most European countries).

 

[Pararousia]

I saw Spike Lee state on TV the other night (Thursday?) that he believed the Federal government made the levees explode in order to exterminate the poor black people of New Orleans. Is that sad or what????!!!

 

[No-name]

Most of the victims were elderly. Many of those were people that couldn't or wouldn't leave including mass numbers left to the storm in nursing home beds. 42% were black, 37% white, 3% hispanic thus far.

 

[Ma Cherie]

I saw Spike Lee state on TV the other night (Thursday?) that he believed the Federal government made the levees explode in order to exterminate the poor black people of New Orleans. Is that sad or what????!!!

Well for starters, the levees could only withstand a catagory 3 hurricane. The levees were going to break. I personally don't know how this turned into a racial thing. I saw Spike Lee on Real Time as well, he also pointed out that he wouldn't put it passed the US government to try to exterminate poor blacks. It's sad that he had to bring up the Tuskeegee Experiment .

 

[No-name]

The Face of Katrina Victims:
http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20051025/435dadc0_3421_1334520051025-1136987060

It's nice to see how absolutely liberal good conservatives become when we need to pull together as in times of disaster. Don't worry about the price tag, we'll get the job done.