Support your president, he needs all the help he can get.

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Thanks Andy for the backup. Facts are often ignored by the lefties who would rather follow "what feels good".



Who would nobleman rather have in charge? Kerry? You want to talk imbecile. Lower IQ than Bush, lower GPA then Bush. If Bush is an imbecile, what is Kerry? Oh sorry, his claim to fame is three purple hearts. Two from reportedly self-inflicted or self-caused wounds. Gore? The man credited HIMSELF for creating the internet... WRONG! The internet has been around since his daddy was a senator, just as a research/military network. Hillary??Hilarious maybe. President Clinton (I will respect the guy as a president and use his proper title, even though most lefties won't give that respect to PRESIDENT Bush)? That guy has done more harm then good for this country.



As far as strengthening the military?! Mr. Clinton did everything he could to cut benefits, pay, housing etc. Mr. Bush restored many of the programs that were cut. Under Mr. Clinton, we would have been hard pressed to fight a two front war. Mr. Bush is currently doing so, plus has troops on duty in the south for the Hurricane, over seas in case of problems, etc. If we don't have the ability to fight on two fronts at the same time, we don't really have a useful military IN MY OPINION.





Amazing how much of the arguements against my list were "he jumpped on the bandwagon", or "he extended what another president did" or "it wasn't good enough to do just that", "so did everyone else", etc.



I may take your arguement about one or two of the spending things as not being good. This isa list that I put together from reading. These are accomplishments. Some I would rather not have seen, but that's another argument.



One of the things that maybe I should have put in for not doing was signing both Kyoto and the World Court treaties, both of which were touted by the Clinton Presidency. Both of which would have severely crippled this nation but would do nothing about the criminal governments around the world.



 
Nobleman - I will only clarify one of the statements. HW Bush did not take Saddam out the first time around because he had promised the world that his intent was to liberate Kuwait, not take out Saddam. That was akey point to the coalition that he built in the Arab world. Agree with his policies or not, HW was a man of his word and so is W. I am certain that he would not have cried any tears if a stray bullet had caught old Saddam, though. He promised the world, so we didn't march to Baghdad. Period.



OK two - Landmark educational reforms. Worked with Sen Kennedy (BIG mistake) to pass No Child Left Behind and increase Federal education funding by 43%. NCLB has resulted in improved scores for younger at-risk students which narrowed the gap between the worst and best students, while graduating students have shown no significant narrowing (they are to old to have been targeted by NCLB).



R Shek - I am with you on this, but President Clinton didn't push for Kyoto and the Senate voted it down with 99 votes. President Clinton did his usual bit, said nice words about Kyoto when it's supporters were around, but never once asked Congress to ratify the treaty. Typical triangulation theory.



Even Dean says it should be renogtiated to include the exempted economys of China and India (plus a few other, I think).



Kyoto would require us to reduce our greenhouse emissions below the level in 1990. Imagine how much we would have to restrict our economy, even with new technology.



Andy - you are correct we are not in a recession. The last one began in the last two quarters of the Clinton administration. Despite 9-11, President Bush's policies helped pull us out. I say helped, because very few Pesidents impact our economy (Carter and Reagan) and don't have a lot of power over our economy.
 
The person we should thank for the prosperity during the past couple of decades is Alan Greenspan. He has drove our economy through some pretty rough terrain during his years in office. I sure hope he has trained his deputy well. I'm sure we would be in serious shape economically if it were not for him.
 
As an economist, I hold great respect for Mr. Greenspan. I would easily argue that he (his position) is the most powerful person in the world. If you look back at past federal reserve chairmen, few have been as effective, proactive or politically minded as Mr. Greenspan. It will be interesting to see who the new chairman (woman??) will be in the upcomming months. Monitary policy is BAR FAR the most effective way to have long-term effects on the economy, but short term effects are harder to quantify. Fiscal policy is stronger for short term effects, but can have severely damaging results in the long term.



I beleive the prosperity that was seen in the late 1980's through mid-late 1990's was due to the policies of Greenspan and Reagan working in conjunction with each other. The reversal of Volker's high interest rates and the increased spending/lower taxes may have led to a bit higher inflation rates than the fed would have liked but caused the economy to grow at a phenominal pace.
 
Shek,



Can you edit that long post to show that the only part of your response that was addressed directly to me was the part realting to statistics and polls?



I don't remember saying anything about Iraq and WMD's...



Oh, I guess I did say there are probably as many soldiers that would not want to be there as volunteered to be there. But that's pretty much true no matter where they get stationed, isn't it.

 
Did anyone see the Newsweek magazine with the cartoon of former First Lady Bush at the Astrodone?



It was great.



"Yo Hommies! Chillin in yo' new crib!"



IMO, there is a saying, "out of the mouth of babes". Her comment couldn't reflect the attitude of the Bush family more clearly.



JMNSHO though.





Tom
 
Doesn't matter that Mrs. Bush was right, does it? Of course, political opponents have never let alittle thing like the truth get in the way. Was it sensitive and "caring" or "empathetic"? Certainly not. It was, however, true.



Many from NOLA are/will be better off because of relocation. I spoke to a customer of mine today who lost his home and two businesses in NOLA. He is taking the insurance payments, FEMA assiatance and other storm related benefits and relocating to Atlanta. He told me that "there are a lot of us better off to be out of that place". BTW, he is a black guy and a young entrepreneur. Does HE clearly reflect the Bush families attitude? Of course, he took care of his insurance payments, planned for the worst and protected his family, rather than waiting on the government to do it for him. He also evacuated. If he keeps behaving this way Rainbow/PUSH will revoke his membership for "acting white" and being a race traitor. :lol:





 
For every person that is better off, there are 100 that arent. They lost everything. Things you take for granted. Photo's of family that has died in the past. A family heirloom that was passed down from mother to daughter. People lost pets, be it a goldfish, turtle, dog, cat, or anything else. They lost thier home, job, family members.



Better off? I think I would be willing to bet more people are unhappy then those that are.





Tom
 
Tom, I agree with your statement completely, however, Mrs. Bush was not talking about the all of the people in New Orleans. She was specifically talking about the huge number of people in Houston and her comments were dead on the mark. However "insensitive" they are to people.



Here is the complete quote



"Almost everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to

Houston." Then she added: "What I’m hearing which is sort of

scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.



"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this is working very well for them."



So, it is scary because (remember the perspective of a life long wife and mother of politicians) Houston will have to absorb a huge influx of the very people who place the greatest strain on government services and local economies. Correct statement.



Free transportation. housng and food for people from a city filled with corruption and poverty (even before the storm) to a city with resources adn job opportunities sounds like "this is working very well for them".



Insensitive, probably. True? Absolutely. She was talking about the people in the Astrodome, not NOLA in general.
 
Caymen says:
IMO, there is a saying, "out of the mouth of babes". Her comment couldn't reflect the attitude of the Bush family more clearly.
Click to expand...



Tom thinks Barbara Bush is a "babe".



Stay away from my grandmother you perv Caymen!



:lol:



TJR
 
Again, I know what she ment, but I do not agree with her comment.



It is like having a big fire in a poverished neighborhood. Well, those people are better off, they lived in crappy homes anyways.



The difference was that it was thier home.



Those of us that live in a nice neighborhood don't think that those that live in the slums are people too.



I grew up in a typical urban neighborhood in the city just outside of downtown. We have prostitutes, drug dealers, crackheads, and just plain old scum. Many people live there because they just can't afford to live anywhere else.



Just because they get moved to Houston and will be given a place to stay, money, food, etc. does not mean they will be better off. They lived in government housing and they will again live in government housing.



Are going to get a chance to live in a $200,000 home? Nope! They are going to live in the projects just like they did in NO. The only difference is that they will be living in Texas and not in LA.



I just don't buy that "better off" crap.



I see it as she is out of touch to the way others live and is too ignorant to see it. (And when I say ignorant, I am not talking about her intellect)





Tom
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cayman says: "The difference was that it was their home."



Also Cayman says: "Just because they get moved to Houston and will be given a place to stay, money, food, etc. does not mean they will be better off. They lived in government housing and they will again live in government housing."



Sure it does. They are better off BECAUSE I AS THE TAX PAYER SAY SO.



You see, using logic from past discussions, if I as the taxpayer provide the home that many of the these people lived in and the new homes that they will live in, and if I provide through my tax dollars money to suppor their lifestyle, then *I GET TO DECIDE* if the new lifestyle is better than the previous.



Just like I GET TO DECIDE how they should spend that $2000 debit card.



The opinion of the recipients, their desires, what they want doesn't count. It's MY MONEY, so what I say is the rule, and I say they are better off!



(TONGUE FIRMLY PLACED IN CHEEK).



TJR
 
TJR,



You are right. I do not think someone that sponges off of me should live in a $200,000 home. Government housing is just that Government housing.



With that being said, those people aren't better off. Barbara Bush might think they are better off. She must think if you live in LA, then move to Tx, you "upgraded" your life.





Tom
 
There will likely be a point in time in the future when many of those that previously lived in VERY bad conditions, in run-down houses and in crime-infested hoods will arguably be better off from the viewpoint of an outsider looking in. I firmly believe that.



Are they better off now? No, most probably aren't.



Will many of them benefit from a total "reboot" of their lives...yes, I think so.



TJR
 
Especially if the ones that are able bodied people, that once were content to sit on their duffs and let taxpayers support them get a little bit of pride and go to work.
 
Not going to happen. People are assuming the propery was owned by those that lived there. Most of it was rental. The newly rebuilt housing will be too nice to rent as cheaply as the older run-down stuff was. So the people that were living there will be economically left out and people with more money (though not exactly rich) will move in. That means the previous residents will have to find affordable (read - run down) housing elsewhere.



Of course, that assumes they don't replace the old housing with luxury condo's. Never can tell what a rental property owner will or won't do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here comes the Liberal!

Folks I must apologize but I am a firm believer that poor black people in that area - are there due to circumstances set up by years of oppression that is still evident. I am sure many blacks are abusing the system, but a majority are not! I think given the opportunity of education and employment similar to that of white folks it would not be this way. I am not arguing this belief, I am just stating my beliefs!



Maybe, just maybe when the rebuild comes, the jobs created will give BLACKS an EQUAL

opportunity to share in the wealth and job market.... There is going to be plenty of money and jobs created.

There are probably 2 sets of opinions here, #1 is blacks are lazy and don't want to work they love the welfare life. #2 is blacks are disenfranchised and generally left with low paying jobs that do not cut it when the bills roll in. I think #2 is where I stand. I feel if there is some sort of fairness and equality we should see many black workers down there making equitable money as white workers when the rebuild comes. Again as I posted before, if they make up even 20% of the labor force I will be suprised! Furthermore they will still be paid 1/2 as much as white laborers with similar skills for reasons unknown. I'd take that bet to the bank!



Now we have more issues, will the jobs be fairly distributed or do we need someone to watch over this to be sure that blacks are not excluded. For the anti-affirmative action people, if we rely on hoping for fairness by the area government and contractors what will be the recourse if we see it is totally out of whack - an apology? Will there be crying if Jesse Jackson monitors it for fairness or will we see the justification?



 

Latest posts

Top