Liberals Need to Take a Lesson

[DC Tom]

I do wonder DC Tom, or at least this is the thought that crossed my mind when I read your post...

Of those three things how much did he have to do with causing them?

 

- His foreign policy and blank checks to Israel have obviously caused a lot of Islam hatred towards the USA.

- There is plenty of documentation showing the levies were old and in disrepair and requests to repair them had been ignored.

- Being President for 7.5 years prior to a recession, I think his policies had a little something to do with the collapse.

 

I mean I personally blame him for at least the wars and the recession. Especially the recession. I suppose pinning the levies on him is just being hateful, so I won't do that. Either way, I cannot tell what you feel his role was in all of these. Is it causation or correlation?

 

The recession's easy to pin on him: like you said, almost two full terms of economic policies and deregulation. It is, however, more complex than that - as I've said repeatedly, the fundamental problem is a 30-year policy promoting home ownership as a right, not a responsibility. This meltdown goes all the way back to Carter. But even then...I don't necessarily believe the president has all that much ability to control the economy anyway.

 

Katrina - if you want to talk about the disrepair of New Orleans' flood system, that's again a long-term problem that people want to pin on the most proximal guy in charge. That's silly...if Katrina hit eight years earlier, it wouldn't have been Clinton's fault. If it had happened this year, it wouldn't be Obama's fault. If, on the other hand, you want to blame him for the lack of preparedness...that's even sillier. What, precisely, is the president supposed to do three days before a hurricane makes landfall that wasn't done for Katrina? About the only additional step he could have taken - declare martial law, put the city under federal control, and get everyone out - not only makes sense only in hindsight, but would have been precisely the kind of dictatorial usurpation of local authority and suspension of civil rights that everyone complains his administration did anyway.

 

9/11 - now you're just being stupid. Bush's friendly policy towards Israel caused a terrorist attack that was initiated about a year before Bush was elected? Last I checked, effect follow cause in this world, not the other way around. I sill maintain, and will continue to do so until my dying breath, that Clinton's Administration caused 9/11 with his ridiculously inept, short-sighted, pathetic excuse for a Central Asia foreign policy through his term. Had he had the sense to diplomatically engage anyone in the region through the Afgani Civil War, there's a good chance the Taliban don't take power.

 

If, on the other hand, you want to talk about preventing 9/11...that was never going to happen, no matter who was in the White House. You see, the three things discussed here (the failure to prevent the meltdown of the financial system, the failure to prevent New Orleans from being destroyed, the failure to prevent 9/11) have one thing in common: they represent systemic problems in the way the federal government and American society address issues, not individual failures of any one executive. But Americans are pretty simple - stupid, really - in looking for the most proximal person to blame for problems of their own making. The sitting President usually makes a good scapegoat.

 

It'll happen to Obama, too...he'll be a scapegoat for something at some point. Hell, I could do it now: I saw a report on CNN today that many municipalities are unable to use the money given to them under the stimulus package, because the federal restrictions on and requirements for its use make it almost impossible to receive the money in a timely fashion. It's awfully easy to say "Obama's an idiot; he made all this money available, but made it too difficult for anyone to receive any of it." It would also be stupid, and false: it's a systemic problem, due entirely to the fact that our bloated leviathan of a government moves at speeds that make glaciers look peppy. But it's the nature of American society that the guy closest to the problem gets blamed...usually to the distraction from the actual problem itself.

[DC Tom]

oooooohhhh maybe like picked up the phone, talked to the affected governors about their plans, had FEMA standing by, you know the usual stuff.

 

He did. It was reported at the time that he did. It was reported before Katrina struck that FEMA was mobilized and waiting (and given that 80% of FEMA's field hospitals were in New Orleans within 48 hours of everyone saying "New Orleans dodget a bullet.", I'd say FEMA was in fact pretty well mobilized.)

 

Do you people really not remember what happened? You honest recollection is that New Orleans was flooded during the hurricane, and no one did anything for three days? This is recent history...it's a trivial matter to look up the contemporary reports. Are you honestly telling me that everyone's forgotten what actually happened?

[Bishop Hedd]

oooooohhhh maybe like picked up the phone, talked to the affected governors about their plans, had FEMA standing by, you know the usual stuff.For Christ's sake, many of us have more disaster preparedness in our basements and garages than the feds had for Katrina. And as King of the Feds, the buck (much as he always dodged it) DID end with him.

Well he was in SloCal posing with a banjo while thousands of folks were suffering. Give it up tom. yer gettin yer ass kicked up and down the court.

[erynthered]

The recession's easy to pin on him: like you said, almost two full terms of economic policies and deregulation. It is, however, more complex than that - as I've said repeatedly, the fundamental problem is a 30-year policy promoting home ownership as a right, not a responsibility. This meltdown goes all the way back to Carter. But even then...I don't necessarily believe the president has all that much ability to control the economy anyway.

 

Katrina - if you want to talk about the disrepair of New Orleans' flood system, that's again a long-term problem that people want to pin on the most proximal guy in charge. That's silly...if Katrina hit eight years earlier, it wouldn't have been Clinton's fault. If it had happened this year, it wouldn't be Obama's fault. If, on the other hand, you want to blame him for the lack of preparedness...that's even sillier. What, precisely, is the president supposed to do three days before a hurricane makes landfall that wasn't done for Katrina? About the only additional step he could have taken - declare martial law, put the city under federal control, and get everyone out - not only makes sense only in hindsight, but would have been precisely the kind of dictatorial usurpation of local authority and suspension of civil rights that everyone complains his administration did anyway.

 

9/11 - now you're just being stupid. Bush's friendly policy towards Israel caused a terrorist attack that was initiated about a year before Bush was elected? Last I checked, effect follow cause in this world, not the other way around. I sill maintain, and will continue to do so until my dying breath, that Clinton's Administration caused 9/11 with his ridiculously inept, short-sighted, pathetic excuse for a Central Asia foreign policy through his term. Had he had the sense to diplomatically engage anyone in the region through the Afgani Civil War, there's a good chance the Taliban don't take power.

 

If, on the other hand, you want to talk about preventing 9/11...that was never going to happen, no matter who was in the White House. You see, the three things discussed here (the failure to prevent the meltdown of the financial system, the failure to prevent New Orleans from being destroyed, the failure to prevent 9/11) have one thing in common: they represent systemic problems in the way the federal government and American society address issues, not individual failures of any one executive. But Americans are pretty simple - stupid, really - in looking for the most proximal person to blame for problems of their own making. The sitting President usually makes a good scapegoat.

 

It'll happen to Obama, too...he'll be a scapegoat for something at some point. Hell, I could do it now: I saw a report on CNN today that many municipalities are unable to use the money given to them under the stimulus package, because the federal restrictions on and requirements for its use make it almost impossible to receive the money in a timely fashion. It's awfully easy to say "Obama's an idiot; he made all this money available, but made it too difficult for anyone to receive any of it." It would also be stupid, and false: it's a systemic problem, due entirely to the fact that our bloated leviathan of a government moves at speeds that make glaciers look peppy. But it's the nature of American society that the guy closest to the problem gets blamed...usually to the distraction from the actual problem itself.

 

Stop being rational, its not like you.

 

Nice post mannequin !@#$er.

[drnykterstein]

Stop being rational, its not like you.

 

Stop piggybacking on the brains of others.

[drnykterstein]

The recession's easy to pin on him: like you said, almost two full terms of economic policies and deregulation. It is, however, more complex than that - as I've said repeatedly, the fundamental problem is a 30-year policy promoting home ownership as a right, not a responsibility. This meltdown goes all the way back to Carter. But even then...I don't necessarily believe the president has all that much ability to control the economy anyway.

Oh goodness. Do you say this because because it's actually true or because you want it to be true? If so beware, you are pinning blame on 8 years of your beloved Reagan, as well as 8 years of GWB. In fact in total, 12 years of dems, and 20 years of republican tax policies. In either case "30-year policy promoting home ownership as a right, not a responsibility"????? Wow! Why don't you blame the boogie man?

 

Ok then, so you think Bush had nothing to do with causing this receptions. I think your theory on the presidents ability to control the economy was proved wrong by FDR and will again be proven wrong by Obama.

 

 

Katrina..

I said I'm not blaming him. I don't know why you typed this all.

 

 

9/11 - now you're just being stupid.

I'll give you that one, it's probably not possibly to say he caused 9/11. I think heard once 8 years of preparation was put in by the attackers. Still doesn't explain why the hell we went to Iraq. I'm not sure fully how the attack itself is a black eye for Bush. What is a black eye for him is how he used that to turn into an all controlling dictator who spies on his own citizens and imprisons people without trial.

 

If, on the other hand, you want to talk about preventing 9/11..

I'm not and won't. Given the wiretaps that have been uncovered, I have full confidence in Bush's ability to spy on people and collect information when available.

[StupidNation]

Ok then, so you think Bush had nothing to do with causing this receptions. I think your theory on the presidents ability to control the economy was proved wrong by FDR and will again be proven wrong by Obama.

 

You realize it's Congress that proposes the bills right?

 

Actually the Fed and the Treasury have more power than Congress and the President on the economy and they aren't elected.

[drnykterstein]

Actually the Fed and the Treasury have more power than Congress and the President on the economy and they aren't elected.

 

I forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me. Guess who appoints the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve?

 

Also, guess who bullies congress with veto threats???

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

So you are saying he was a victim, eh? Arguably he might have had little control over prevention of catastrophes, but he certainly should have had some control over response, and that what he's been held accountable for.

 

There were warning signs - some subtle, some not - for ALL of those major catastrophes. Their damage could have been mitigated by paying more attention and taking appropriate steps. THAT is what the President is accountable for, and at THAT he failed.

 

Funny how people wanted Obama to act THE day of the "imminent" flooding in ND..

Yet they were OK with help arriving to the Super dome 5 to 7 days AFTER the fact.

 

As with Katrina, people had tome to evacuate. Those that stayed took their own risk in doing so and payed a heavy price.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

I do wonder DC Tom, or at least this is the thought that crossed my mind when I read your post...

Of those three things how much did he have to do with causing them?

 

- His foreign policy and blank checks to Israel have obviously caused a lot of Islam hatred towards the USA.

- There is plenty of documentation showing the levies were old and in disrepair and requests to repair them had been ignored.

- Being President for 7.5 years prior to a recession, I think his policies had a little something to do with the collapse.

 

I mean I personally blame him for at least the wars and the recession. Especially the recession. I suppose pinning the levies on him is being unfair, so I won't do that. Either way, I cannot tell what you feel his role was in all of these. Is it causation or correlation?

 

Hey now ... Let's not mix FACTS with fiction here!!