Bush wants more Fed control

When everyone is out to get you, you can't be too paranoid. ;)

I cringe every time I see the FedGov growing. Lately, I've been cringing almost constantly.

Where have you gone, Ronald Reagan? A nation turns it's lonely eyes to you. :(

-Dave
 
Bush's Presidency is a good example of how the measure of a leader is not
how well he accomplished his initial agenda but how well he reacted to the
unexpected and unanticipated. Herbert Hoover's reputation is still poor because he failed to deal with the Great Depression in an effective and one must say compassionate way. It was Harry Hopkins, one of FDR's "Whiz Kids"
who said "hunger is not negotiable". Likewise Truman's name is still largely mud because of the Korean War, when he sent U.S. forces that were understrength, underequipped and ill trained against a tough and determined enemy, then still failed to provide U.S. commanders with what they needed and failed to formulate a clear and effective strategy. LBJ's "Great Society"
was derailed by Vietnam. In this case, I am leery of assigning more duties to the Pentagon when it often cannot fulfill the ones it already has, and often fulfills those in a less than satisfactory manner. I have read that FEMA is one of those federal agencies that too often is used as a dumping ground for duds
and jerks the others don't want, the real answer of course is that duds and jerks and incompetents should be fired.
 
Last edited:
Bush's Presidency is a good example of how the measure of a leader is not how well he accomplished his initial agenda but how well he reacted to the unexpected and unanticipated.
Click to expand...
Pretty tough to argue with that insight. Well stated.
Rich
 
Did anybody expect George W. Bush to be a new Reagan? It was obvious from day one that he was going to be yet another moderate.
 
I think he is in crisis management mode and thats when leaders make the poorest of decisions. Since being attacked by the media and left so visciously time and again he is grasping at straws to keep the snarling dogs at bay. Bush must understand NOTHING he will do or say will be good enough or right for the leftwing hate mongers so why appease the losers!!! You cannot bargain with a snarling rabid dog period!!!! He should focus on HIS agenda not theirs and forget trying to win a popularity contest that is setup for him to loose regardless of what he does. Also Bush 41 was a moderate in most ways and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Bush 41 tried to appease the left and look at where it got him!
 
Two things:

1) As a bonafide lefty (at least 'round these parts, GWB has done nothing to appease us and a whole lot to infuriate us.

2) The media is as heavily slanted towards the "right" as it is the left. The editors, who make the call on what articles to run, tend to lean right versus the left-leaning reporters. Remember, though, that the edtior has final say. Also, this supposedly "liberal" media has never been so overrun with rightist blowhards ala the Fox New Channel lineup.

gfen, go 'head, suggest Colmes as "balanced" to Hannity.
 
I think perhaps you shouldnt judge Bush by his bad decisions but rather by his indecisiveness. Sept 11 the towers were coming down, Bush sat there in a haze reading that story about the goat. Katrina hurricane, when he finally gets to the area a week later..he talks about rebuilding Trent Lotts house and sitting on his porch. To me at least often at times he seems confused when he doesnt have his handlers present and lacks direction and general decision making ability in a crisis. These comments lack orientation as its neither a critique coming from the left or the right, just my opinion.
 
Look at the basics, what is done instead of what is said, he has out spent Klinton, he has outdone Klinton on trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights(didn't think either were possible), expanded government, increased spending on socialist programs, and is now calling for more fed control! The bottom line is as many have said before, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between r's and d's, the only agenda is controlling and milking the peasants by buying votes with bread and circuses and the threat of barbarians at the gate. If voting made any difference it would be illegal. Here is the best explanation of where we are and why that I have seen;
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm

Fact is they are here;
http://proliberty.com/observer/19990211.htm

A note from Ms. Wolfe;

*WHY HAS THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DECIDED* that an assortment of publicly available government publications on asset forfeiture techniques are now not to be viewed by us peasants <http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/08/ale04025.html>? Absurdly, the publications librarians have been ordered to destroy include -- believe it or not -- a copy of a law, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA).

*http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/08/ale04025.html*


Another detail;
Bush plans to screen whole US population for mental illness;

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458
Not a joke, Illinois has started;
http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17748

And guess what goes along with the instant check/registration form;
http://www.educationnews.org/psychoanalyzing-the-public.htm
A taxpayer-funded study by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Science Foundation (NIMH-NSF) announced last August that adherents to conventional moral principles and limited government are mentally disturbed.

Of course, the disturbed can not be allowed sharp objects or bb guns, only the Marxists, socialists, and any extreme lefties and their bodyguards, all courtesy of the "conservative", your friend and mine, current administration. Hope your left wing and goose step is in good shape, not to mention your "papers".

And, conservatives and the 2nd Amendment;
http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2005/tle310-20050313-02.html

No way to make this stuff up, dates, names, and places can be checked.
Can you say Sieg Heil?
 
I think it's just a reaction to the Katrina experience. As it happened, things didn't start to turn around until some regular army got involved (this General Honore seems to get a lot of the credit for helping to turn the tide (pun intended :p ).

If the people at FEMA planned and did their job properly, and they were adequately staffed and equipped, if state and local authorities planned and did their job properly, and all 3 cooperated and coordinated well together... probably wouldn't have needed any rescuing by the army.

I am guessing from Bush's experience, he's just looking at what did work well this time (army involvement), and also considering what's in his control (Federal agencies) in order to make things work better the next time - more reaction than analysis. I do think he is spooked by his poll numbers, which have been on a downhill slide for more than a year and have officially arrived in the subterranean. I don't think pointing the US military at the US is the best idea, but I think that's why he's thinking along these lines.
 
The unspoken message to the ruling class after Katrina was simple, direct, and impossible to mistake, "You knuckleheads ain't gettin' a second chance. We don't care who screwed up. It will not happen again. Do we understand each other?"

Bush is looking at what has to happen when local government freezes or gets stoopid in view of the new political reality. Do I like the idea of a federales bigfoot action in local disasters? Not hardly. Am I willing to watch citizens die because of mindboggling stupidity, indecisiveness, and political corruption? Not hardly either. I personally think piking a few heads will do wonders in focusing politician's attentions and clarifying priorities.
 
I personally think piking a few heads will do wonders in focusing politician's attentions and clarifying priorities.
Click to expand...
Well, former FEMA head Michael Brown is now spiffing up his resume' and New Orleans police chief Eddie Compass just resigned today. That's a good start.
 
FEMA is a traditional patronage prize for second string political operative of the winning politicians. Brown was thrown under the bus just as soon as Bush started taking serious hits on his popularity. I think Blanco and the Idiot Mayor would be a great start. I want to hear more about the conversations before the storm between Blanco and the federales where she was demanding total control over rebuilding money (which is exactly what she requested after the storm in her wishlist handed to congress). I want to see the Idiot Mayor justify his delay in evacuating the city. I want to know more about the law which made the state liable for lost revenues once an emergency was declared. Lots of stuff contributed to the Katrina charlie-foxtrot. I want to know what happened, why it happened, and who made it happen. Then I want 'em piked. You just don't use human lives as poker chips in a political game.
 
2) The media is as heavily slanted towards the "right" as it is the left. The editors, who make the call on what articles to run, tend to lean right versus the left-leaning reporters. Remember, though, that the edtior has final say.
Click to expand...

That's just crap.

If the editors have the final say, and the editors are the ones that are right-leaning, how does that square with the fact that most of what we see from mainstream news outlets (print, t.v., radio alike) is LEFTIST?


Or did you forget the big rush to tell us how horrible the crime problem would get if the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire? :rolleyes:

Give us some examples, please, of issues that are covered in the mainstream media (CBS, NBC, CNN, NY Times, USA Today) with an obvious right-wing bias.

We can sure do it with LEFT-wing bias.


-blackmind
 
Oh, and how can the media be "as heavily slanted towards the right as it is the left"?

Wouldn't that mean "IN THE CENTER"?? :confused: :rolleyes:


-blackmind
 
Give us some examples, please, of issues that are covered in the mainstream media (CBS, NBC, CNN, NY Times, USA Today) with an obvious right-wing bias.
Click to expand...

The War on Drugs?

Other than thay, yes, you're right.
 
SIG I hope you weren't holding FDR in some kind of reverence with that post. He was the beginning of the crap we are wading in now, well-intentioned or not. Now where did I put all that social security money? Hmmm.... must've misplaced it.

Give us some examples, please, of issues that are covered in the mainstream media (CBS, NBC, CNN, NY Times, USA Today) with an obvious right-wing bias.
Click to expand...

How bout the war in Iraq? It looks more like propoganda than objective reporting, and that has been going on for a LONG time. If big business owns the media outlets, what sort of slant do you expect the news, owned by those conglomerates, is going to have?
 
I am not holding FDR in any kind of reverence, I simply note that he beat
Hoover in 1932 because the voters felt that Hoover really wasn't doing enough to cope with the Great Depression. In 1992 Bush 41 lost to Slick Willie
because the voters felt he was not paying enought attention to a sluggish and ailing economy. I will add Carter as another president defeated by something that occured on his watch and he failed to deal with effectively, namely the Iran Hostage Crisis.
 
So noted. I have a real problem with the first administration to decide that income tax isn't just for financing wars anymore, but can fuel the development of a larger government. Add social security (another tax) and medicare (tax) to that, and we went from bad to worse.
 
Tax and spend is the American way. Its been going on since FDR in a big way but since Lincoln as a concept. Lincoln was the one who taught us how to finance a war.

What is new is the complete abandonment of any pretense of restraint. In the not so far distant past democrats and republicans were different. Democrats spend and tax and republicans fought it because they didn't want democrats getting credit. There may have been a fascade of principal but I just think the politics was to keep democrats from getting credit.

Now that republicans control congress and the executive branch there is no opposition party. Add to that the republican's strategy of becoming all things to all people and you get the insane mix of unrestrained spending and no counterbalance because democrats supported the very things republicans now spend on.

There is a train wreck out there. When and how is unknown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top