You're right, it's the media!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

As long as we're talking about facts, the Bush videos and articles talk about the briefing BEFORE the hurricane, and that's SnR point about the warnings of levees potentially being topped not breached.  The topping of the levees would cause no where near the damage.

 

What's more...this "smoking gun" briefing, from everything I've heard, discusses the potential for the levees to be breached (and as a point of engineering: when earthen levees are topped, there's a reasonable expectation they'll also be breached. Water flowing down the backside of the levee makes quick work of it.) That's not "knowing" the levees would be breached; you can't know a possible future event will occur.

 

And anyway...let's even assume the federal government "knew". They're supposed to do what, precisely? Order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans? Oh, wait...THAT WAS DONE. Maybe order Nagin to cease the "evacuation in place" and literally evacuate the city...except the federal government doesn't have the authority to do that, as far as I know. Maybe they were supposed to rebuild the levees in the 48 hours before the hurricane hit?

 

Of course, little mention is made of another video AFTER the hurricane where Blanco says to remain calm, that all is well, and the levees aren't breached.

617534[/snapback]

 

Little mention is made of any of the news reports the night after the storm passed, where reporters in New Orleans are saying "New Orleans dodged a bullet." Or of Nagin telling people going to the Superdome to bring supplies for 3-5 days, since that's how long it would take for relief to reach them.

[SilverNRed]

What's more...this "smoking gun" briefing, from everything I've heard, discusses the potential for the levees to be breached (and as a point of engineering: when earthen levees are topped, there's a reasonable expectation they'll also be breached.  Water flowing down the backside of the levee makes quick work of it.)  That's not "knowing" the levees would be breached; you can't know a possible future event will occur.

617628[/snapback]

There isn't even that much talk about breaching. The word "breach" doesn't come up very much in the transcripts.

 

I misspoke before. Some levees were topped by the storm surge but the main problem was that the levees were breached. It's a huge difference and the new video doesn't provide any evidence that they knew it would happen.

 

Little mention is made of any of the news reports the night after the storm passed, where reporters in New Orleans are saying "New Orleans dodged a bullet." 

617628[/snapback]

Thanks, I thought I was the only one who remembered that.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

There isn't even that much talk about breaching.  The word "breach" doesn't come up very much in the transcripts.

 

I misspoke before.  Some levees were topped by the storm surge but the main problem was that the levees were breached.  It's a huge difference and the new video doesn't provide any evidence that they knew it would happen.

617643[/snapback]

 

Hardly matters. The bottom line in this whole thing is: Americans are !@#$ing idiots.

[Like A Mofo]

Bungling Bush Presidency

 

He's done such an excellent job; how could the media do this to him?   

617401[/snapback]

 

 

Newsday? next question

[TPS]

They're really not.  They're simply continuing the evolution of seperating the Lords from the serfs.  The sad part is they derive this power because the serfs have the wrong priorities.

617521[/snapback]

 

I guess where I see them different is their belief in using a unilateralist foreign policy and the muscle of an unchallenged super power to pursue their strategic global objectives. Otherwise, dem=rep and rep=dem when it comes to using government as a redistributive mechanism to reward cronies.

[Ghost of BiB]

I guess where I see them different is their belief in using a unilateralist foreign policy and the muscle of an unchallenged super power to pursue their strategic global objectives. Otherwise, dem=rep and rep=dem when it comes to using government as a redistributive mechanism to reward cronies.

617694[/snapback]

 

Works for me.

[GG]

Just when it is a failure, I wish someone up top would admit it and make changes.  Usually, though it is a question of priorities, and we know where Bush's priorities are and it ain't NO. 

617461[/snapback]

 

Is this a slight contradiction?

 

Aren't a lot of arrows slung at Bush drawn by those whose jobs his administration would deem irrelevant. Please spare the stock reply that he's not seeking consensus.

 

It's nice to pine for someone to clean up the DC establishment, and then run for the hills when that guy starts slaying sacred cows.

[GG]

I guess where I see them different is their belief in using a unilateralist foreign policy and the muscle of an unchallenged super power to pursue their strategic global objectives. 

617694[/snapback]

 

You're saying that like it's a bad thing.

 

Do you really believe that a "unilateralist" US/UK global policy is that much worse than seeking consent from the Sino-Franco-Russian-UN hodgepodge? Heaven knows, that quartet has a deep history of helping out mankind, and that commitment to human rights is codified in their very existence.

[Alaska Darin]

You're saying that like it's a bad thing.

 

Do you really believe that a "unilateralist" US/UK global policy is that much worse than seeking consent from the Sino-Franco-Russian-UN hodgepodge?  Heaven knows, that quartet has a deep history of helping out mankind, and that commitment to human rights is codified in their very existence.

617713[/snapback]

You forgot the Germans.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Is this a slight contradiction? 

 

Aren't a lot of arrows slung at Bush drawn by those whose jobs his administration would deem irrelevant.  Please spare the stock reply that he's not seeking consensus. 

 

It's nice to pine for someone to clean up the DC establishment, and then run for the hills when that guy starts slaying sacred cows.

617711[/snapback]

Yeh I agree with that part, but he hasn't, of course any agency that is getting cut will cry about it legitimacy and I agree with that. And if I don't agree with the priorities of course I will complain. Clinton and Reagan were just that much more tactful in accomplishing it, forced retirements, moving resources subtly, and buyouts.

 

While I don't agree with his policies, I think Bush gets in more trouble because he is so blatant about it and in some was obstinantly transparent. He would be better served, of course he is not interested in following this advice, if he would just stop acting like an absentee landlord. Reagan and Clinton could pull it off and make you feel okay about it even when they were doing just the opposite.

 

Hence, why everyone says he lacks the leadership skills and something is missing there? When engaged he is brilliant, however, that is so infrequent and his bumbling so obvious that only after 9/11 did I feel any comfort with him, and then it ended quickly.

 

P.S. he may have said he was going to clean up DC but, the muck just switched parties, on that I agree with the libertarians, except Bush and the GOP with no other party in control of any branch, have taken it to another level. I hope the run for the Hills comment was not a personal statement, I spent 21 years in DC, just not a place I think is conducive to raising a kid, if my son wasn't born, I would still be there.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

There isn't even that much talk about breaching.  The word "breach" doesn't come up very much in the transcripts.

 

I misspoke before.  Some levees were topped by the storm surge but the main problem was that the levees were breached.  It's a huge difference and the new video doesn't provide any evidence that they knew it would happen.

Thanks, I thought I was the only one who remembered that.

617643[/snapback]

I still remember a lot of discussion of the integrety of the walls before the storm hit if the water rose to near the top. I vaguely remember CNN ran some sort of diagram and there was concern that in certain areas the soil would not hold the wall. The army corp guy thought it would...but there was some engineering expert who cast doubt on old sections of the levee, regardless...

 

...I was just pointing out that your pitbull like defense of Bush's is inconsitent with your criticism of the mayor and you try and switch the focus to him off the President. Granted the mayor is an idiot, just wish you would acknowledge the Admin's failure and Bush's disengagement.

 

Probably too much to ask.

[Ghost of BiB]

?

 

When one sees pictures like this, one has to wonder a bit.

 

"Everybody" was "woefully inadequate". Whatever. This photo still bugs the crap out of me.

[GG]

Yeh I agree with that part, but he hasn't, of course any agency that is getting cut will cry about it legitimacy and I agree with that.  And if I don't agree with the priorities of course I will complain.  Clinton and Reagan were just that much more tactful in accomplishing it, forced retirements, moving resources subtly, and buyouts. 

 

While I don't agree with his policies, I think Bush gets in more trouble because he is so blatant about it and in some was obstinantly transparent.  He would be better served, of course he is not interested in following this advice, if he would just stop acting like an absentee landlord.  Reagan and Clinton could pull it off and make you feel okay about it even when they were doing just the opposite.

 

Hence, why everyone says he lacks the leadership skills and something is missing there?  When engaged he is brilliant, however, that is so infrequent and his bumbling so obvious that only after 9/11 did I feel any comfort with him, and then it ended quickly.

 

P.S. he may have said he was going to clean up DC but, the muck just switched parties, on that I agree with the libertarians, except Bush and the GOP with no other party in control of any branch, have taken it to another level.  I hope the run for the  Hills comment was not a personal statement, I spent 21 years in DC, just not a place I think is conducive to raising a kid, if my son wasn't born, I would still be there.

617754[/snapback]

 

It's not so much individuals that I was referring to, but institutions. Tax reform, social security reform, health insurance reform, intelligence services reform, Pentagon, etc. There is a lot of petrified forest to wade through. Each of the above is in dire need of fixing, yet you would think that Bush is killing your grandmother anytime he proposes a rational fix.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

It's not so much individuals that I was referring to, but institutions.  Tax reform, social security reform, health insurance reform, intelligence services reform, Pentagon, etc.  There is a lot of petrified forest to wade through.  Each of the above is in dire need of fixing, yet you would think that Bush is killing your grandmother anytime he proposes a rational fix.

617798[/snapback]

And that is rub, I probably disagree at least two issues you just listed, and someone else would pick two other and I would list a few others you didn't, i.e., anti-trust reform.

 

S.S. is a fixable problem if we just wait it out, maybe cut some benefits around the edges of eligibility, but there is according to experts that I have talked to about a 12 year gap that with the right economic conditions goes away altogether. It is largely a made up funding problem.

[SilverNRed]

...I was just pointing out that your pitbull like defense of Bush's is inconsitent with your criticism of the mayor and you try and switch the focus to him off the President.  Granted the mayor is an idiot, just wish you would acknowledge the Admin's failure and Bush's disengagement.

 

Probably too much to ask.

617766[/snapback]

The mayor is there every day. New Orleans is his problem EVERY DAY.

 

And still there were a couple hundred school buses under water.

 

Why do we even have local government if they can just pass the blame on when they !@#$ up?

 

It's not POTUS's job to evacuate every city and he can't personally inspect the levees in places like New Orleans (not to mention he's not an engineer). The Admin may have been tone deaf and done some things wrong but we still had the fastest and largest rescue effort in US history. Christ, people act like Bush forgot to hit the "make everyone do their job correctly" button and that's why everything went to hell. And we still have the drive-by soundbytes about "Bush knew about the breaches" which aren't even close to true. By the time anyone wants to correct that, it's the next news cycle.

 

If you want to complain about the rebuilding effort, go right ahead, but any time you let the Federal Government do something, it's going to go poorly.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The mayor is there every day.  New Orleans is his problem EVERY DAY. 

 

And still there were a couple hundred school buses under water.

 

Why do we even have local government if they can just pass the blame on when they !@#$ up?

 

It's not POTUS's job to evacuate every city and he can't personally inspect the levees in places like New Orleans (not to mention he's not an engineer).  The Admin may have been tone deaf and done some things wrong but we still had the fastest and largest rescue effort in US history.  Christ, people act like Bush forgot to hit the "make everyone do their job correctly" button and that's why everything went to hell.  And we still have the drive-by soundbytes about "Bush knew about the breaches" which aren't even close to true.  By the time anyone wants to correct that, it's the next news cycle.

 

If you want to complain about the rebuilding effort, go right ahead, but any time you let the Federal Government do something, it's going to go poorly.

617801[/snapback]

Don't agree with your blanket assessment of the Feds, but understand that point of view, heard it a lot, still you should go there and check out the massive terroritory of devastation and then tell me if you think Bush's at least number 2 priority should be riding herd and making sure everyone is doing their jobs and if not get some folks that can.

 

Clinton's top folks were famous for their demands to get things done to the point of being unreasonable, but if they didn't heads rolled. Bush is too nice to his staff.

[GG]

And that is rub, I probably disagree at least two issues you just listed, and someone else would pick two other and I would list a few others you didn't, i.e., anti-trust reform.

 

S.S. is a fixable problem if we just wait it out, maybe cut some benefits around the edges of eligibility, but there is according to experts that I have talked to about a 12 year gap that with the right economic conditions goes away altogether. It is largely a made up funding problem.

617799[/snapback]

 

I would love to know who the "experts" you spoke with and how they can explain away the demographic and employment shifts since the '60s, and how that impacts the actuarial tables undrelying SS. It is far from a made up funding problem, the only real part of the debate is when does the "fund" start paying out more than it receives. Since many of the powerheads in DC will be long dead when the inflection point happens, they can be cavalier in calling it a made up problem.

 

Anti-trust reform is the real made up problem. If there's one great bogeyman monopolist that everyone takes shots at, is Microsoft, but its stock hasn't budged from $26-$28 in the last five years. That's far from unfettered control of the world.

 

It is virtually impossible for any company to dominate any market these days.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I would love to know who the "experts" you spoke with and how they can explain away the demographic and employment shifts since the '60s, and how that impacts the actuarial tables undrelying SS.  It is far from a made up funding problem, the only real part of the debate is when does the "fund" start paying out more than it receives.  Since many of the powerheads in DC will be long dead when the inflection point happens, they can be cavalier in calling it a made up problem.

 

Anti-trust reform is the real made up problem.  If there's one great bogeyman monopolist that everyone takes shots at, is Microsoft, but its stock hasn't budged from $26-$28 in the last five years.  That's far from unfettered control of the world. 

 

It is virtually impossible for any company to dominate any market these days.

617817[/snapback]

I don't think they do, except that there is another group larger than the baby boomers that will come into their earnings prime, "generation next" combined with legal immigration increases over the last 10 years that will overcome all the old baby boomers retiring. Also, it is not when the fund pays out more than it receives that is the problem because it is in surplus, once the budget gimmicks are removed, only when it runs out of funds. I have been told by some former OMB economists that the bottom line funding gap could be bridge by only one year of the funding provided for the war in Iraq, about 2.5 billion if I remember correctly. I would have to check back again to see if those estimates have changed drastically, but I don't think so.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I would love to know who the "experts" you spoke with and how they can explain away the demographic and employment shifts since the '60s, and how that impacts the actuarial tables undrelying SS.  It is far from a made up funding problem, the only real part of the debate is when does the "fund" start paying out more than it receives.  Since many of the powerheads in DC will be long dead when the inflection point happens, they can be cavalier in calling it a made up problem.

 

Anti-trust reform is the real made up problem.  If there's one great bogeyman monopolist that everyone takes shots at, is Microsoft, but its stock hasn't budged from $26-$28 in the last five years.  That's far from unfettered control of the world. 

 

It is virtually impossible for any company to dominate any market these days.

617817[/snapback]

Also, the baby boomers while living longer will begin to die off and when they do, it will provide relief hence the estimate 12 year gap.

[GG]

  I have been told by some former OMB economists that the bottom line funding gap could be bridge by only one year of the funding provided for the war in Iraq, about 2.5 billion if I remember correctly.  I would have to check back again to see if those estimates have changed drastically, but I don't think so.

617821[/snapback]

 

I think you're off by a factor of $1,000 in that estimate. If you want a good proxy for the SS troubles look at steel & Big 3. Those pensions don't look so hot now. Same thing with SS. The dangerous thing about your friends' solution for the defined benefit plans is estimating future contributions based on population growth and immigration. It's a far safer bet to switch to defined contribution. But then, you actually put people in charge of their lives.

 

Ps - the problem is when the fund starts being depleted, because as a trust fund, you never want to be in a position when you start tapping principal. There's a reason why college endowments only live on the investment income, and ones that don't, aren't around anymore.