Bill Clinton uses Katrina for politics..."Katrina a positive thing"

[JonPKibble]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...

When Clinton lied, nobody died.

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



budget surplus, soaring stock market


[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks to the first GOP congress in over 40 years (it ain't no coincidence that we also had deficits for that long before the GOP came to power)


[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO! Hey Genius, you do realize that we now have the biggest deficits in history and the GOP has controlled The White House for 5 years and Congress for 11 years! Wake up and pull your head out of your can!

[lehighguy]

Repost on essentially the same topic:

Normally I don't like Brooks political articles, but this one was ok.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/op...brooks.html?hp

The only thing Bush likes more then tax cuts is rediculous spending, and I think we're going to find quite a lot of money has been spent but accomplished nothing in NO. Even the Army Corps in Lousiana was very well funded, and more money was allocated then under the Clinton administration (http://www.startribune.com/stories/125/5602732.html) Leading one to wonder if more money and regulation is really the solution.

I tried to include an analysis of response budgets, but I'm finding it very diffucult given my only resource is google. It would appear that the budget is a componation of the FEMA budget, part of the homeland security budget earmarked for response, and any federal grants to the local Lousiana response programs. So it's not just a matter of a particular groups funding, but the addition of all three (homeland security will be an important part of this analysis). I appreciate any help if you can find sources on those.

Of course, we aren't the only ones with trouble responding to the weather. The glorious socialist paradise of France had a hard time saving its citizens from hot weather:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...nce-heat_x.htm

I especially like Brook's conclusion:
"But liberals who think this disaster is going to set off a progressive revival need to explain how a comprehensive governmental failure is going to restore America's faith in big government."

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Repost on essentially the same topic:

Normally I don't like Brooks political articles, but this one was ok.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/op...brooks.html?hp

The only thing Bush likes more then tax cuts is rediculous spending, and I think we're going to find quite a lot of money has been spent but accomplished nothing in NO. Even the Army Corps in Lousiana was very well funded, and more money was allocated then under the Clinton administration (http://www.startribune.com/stories/125/5602732.html) Leading one to wonder if more money and regulation is really the solution.

I tried to include an analysis of response budgets, but I'm finding it very diffucult given my only resource is google. It would appear that the budget is a componation of the FEMA budget, part of the homeland security budget earmarked for response, and any federal grants to the local Lousiana response programs. So it's not just a matter of a particular groups funding, but the addition of all three (homeland security will be an important part of this analysis). I appreciate any help if you can find sources on those.

Of course, we aren't the only ones with trouble responding to the weather. The glorious socialist paradise of France had a hard time saving its citizens from hot weather:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...nce-heat_x.htm

I especially like Brook's conclusion:
"But liberals who think this disaster is going to set off a progressive revival need to explain how a comprehensive governmental failure is going to restore America's faith in big government."

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think his conclusion is spot on? The fact is, most people, and the media, have said that the government did not do enough. In your head that might mean "make everything private!" but most people just think government should do a better job.

[lehighguy]

Like I said that doesn't make any sense to me. The government has failed in everything it has done outside of killing people. It has failed to run decent public schools, despite spending more then anyone else. It has failed to solve poverty despite high amounts of welfare spending. It has failed to solve health care despite ever increasing spending and regulation. Its retirement policy and fiscal policy are based on running up debts it never intends to pay.

Government is by nature incompetent. It attracts the most incompetent, and those that are competent are destroyed by the system itself.

[PITTM]

wow, you are just a giant giant moron. seriously. i feel really bad for people like you. but at least youve pretty much taken over politics.

rj

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Low unemployment

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks to the long range structural changes by Reagan [ QUOTE ]
budget surplus, soaring stock market

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks to the first GOP congress in over 40 years (it ain't no coincidence that we also had deficits for that long before the GOP came to power)
[ QUOTE ]
no American troops being killed overseas daily ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Clinton set in motion the lack of response that led to the 9/11 attacks, lucky he got out of office just in time to avoid his failure blowing up in his face.
[ QUOTE ]
What a nightmare!

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, we agree that Clinton was a nightmare. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going out of town for a few weeks. When I come back, I hope I don't see a bunch of crybabies trying to rationalize the spectacular RESULTS under Clinton. I also don't want to see a bunch of excuses for Bush's failures. I thought I made myself clear before. Scoreboard Motherfukers.

Also Andy is right, your spin lately are often blantant lies. I suspect you are a skilled right wing propagandist and can do much better. Don't let me down, I'll be watching.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
When Clinton lied, nobody died.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, Mogadishu ring any bells?