Bush adresses the nation (again)
1BC Civ Forums
1BC Civ Forums
Home      Members   FAQ   Links
Welcome Guest ( Login | Register )
      


1234»»»

Bush adresses the nation (again)Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
9/16/2005 12:04 PM


I am pot

I am potI am potI am potI am potI am potI am potI am potI am pot

Last Seen:
4/4/2006 6:06 PM


Posts: 1,670
Visits: 2,512

As always I get the Canadian response to Bush's addresses... I wanted to see how they compare to the internaional community (which for me is you guys). Any comments on what he said and why he said it? Read the questions/points at the bottom and chip in 2 cents to wherever ya want.

I'll put some headline quotes from Canadian papers here:


Headline: Bush tries to rescue reputation
President George W. Bush, facing an image crisis, admitted Thursday he failed Americans in the response to hurricane Katrina, pitched an anti-poverty plan and promised to pay the bulk of one of the world's largest reconstruction projects
....
While Bush directed his Homeland Security Department to conduct an immediate review of emergency plans in every major city in America, he left many wondering why that hadn't already been done after 9-11.

And the president is facing Republican legislators anxious about the daily $2-billion US price tag for the Katrina cleanup, a cost that could eventually surpass the $300 billion US that's already been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Big spending on the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history has raised serious questions about the finances of a country waging war and grappling with a huge deficit.
....
Despite three trips to the ravaged coast and declaring Friday a national day of prayer and remembrance, his words have lacked the punch and impact of the moments that became iconic following the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001.

Opinion surveys peg Bush at his lowest-ever approval rating. And they routinely suggest most blacks think the botched response is directly related to the poverty and race of area residents, a view most whites don't share.

....
Bush took particular care Thursday to address the racial divide that has split wide open again in the aftermath of Katrina, noting that the poverty exposed to the world "has roots in a history of racial discrimination which cut off generations from the opportunity of America."

"We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action," he said.
...

Democrats are focused on the gains they might make in next year's congressional elections if the catastrophe nudges Americans toward a new level of social consciousness they advocate and away from a decades-long trend toward lower taxes, small government and a fend-for-yourself mentality.

...

Recent surveys suggest most Americans now want Bush to focus on domestic priorities, rather than the terrorism fight that has long been his strong suit. Nearly two-thirds said he does not share their priorities for the United States.


I realize in advance that this is coming from Canadian media, so it's pretty badly skewed to our direction (actually, is Canadian Conservative media here too... I'm kinda curious what the more liberal side goes at). I only quoted certain parts... Theres alot thats just quoting Bush and the sort that I omitted (I only took the points I wanted to bring up here).


So...
1. Are those poll rating true or am I being fed bull? How do people feel about Bush's ratings right now?

2. He went after the poverty portion pretty hard (I would have expected him to try to draw attention away from that actually). Comments? And the big question... Is he just saying this or will action actually be taken?

3. I like the fend-for-yourself comment at the bottom. To a Canadian reading that, it's almost an atrocity (what no help???). Hehe, I doubt thats the same opinion from peeps here though... Any comments on the move towards lower and lower gov't spending and lower taxes? Had more taxes been collecting, could more have been done to prevent this? Would you support a tax hike to increase disaster preparedness?

4. Bush's motives... Was this address simply an attempt to boost ratings or was he informing the public of anything new? (Addit to clarify, I've put this point on here as many news sources are saying this is simply an attempt to save face and not much else)

5. Any issues with the rate of spending for the recovery from Katrina? Is it time to look at and re-eval budget expenditures, or is it borrow the 300 billion and keep staying the path?

6. Similar idea as above... Is 300 billion a reasonable amount to spend on this recovery? Could it be done for less or will more be needed? Could it be spent differently?
9/16/2005 5:45 PM


I am pot

I am potI am potI am potI am potI am potI am potI am potI am pot

Last Seen:
4/4/2006 6:06 PM


Posts: 1,670
Visits: 2,512

Bleh, replying to myself.

(CNN) -- President Bush said Friday his plan for federal projects to rebuild the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina will be expensive, "but I'm confident we can handle it and our other priorities."

The nation will "have to cut unnecessary spending," he said.

He added, "We should not raise taxes."

The president commented on the budget during a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Congress has already approved $62 billion in aid for the hurricane-damaged region. Analysts estimate reconstruction costs will be at least $200 billion. But two top White House officials, during a briefing with reporters Friday, refused to estimate the total cost of Bush's proposals.

Before Katrina hit, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the 2006 budget deficit at $314 billion, down from $331 billion for the current fiscal year. Those annual deficits add to the historic federal deficit.


Hmmm, I don't want to get back into the Bush bashin trend... But what does he think is left for gov't spending that could have 200 billion to cut back from? I don't think (especially given his corporate career) Bush has a full grasp on financial concepts here... That or he's firmly under the beleif money grows on trees. Will the deficit just exapnd to include the 200 billion then?

Opinions on this one? Please avoid the partisan bit if we can... I just really don't see what Bush thinks he can cut back on now. Any idea how (or where) this 200 billion can come from?
9/16/2005 6:59 PM


Veteran Warlord

Veteran WarlordVeteran WarlordVeteran WarlordVeteran WarlordVeteran WarlordVeteran WarlordVeteran WarlordVeteran Warlord

Last Seen:
10/6/2006 6:56 PM


Posts: 167
Visits: 2,025

The recently passed highway and energy bills are filled with "pork". Many billions would be available there if the political establishment could agree to revise those bills and redirect everyone's pork project to the aid of New Orleans.
9/17/2005 5:53 AM


Telepathic Surgeon

Telepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic Surgeon

Last Seen:
11/24/2008 9:01 AM


Posts: 1,887
Visits: 3,538

Bush must have figured that the 1500+ doctors and the 42,000+ pounds of medicine and supplies that Cuba offered wasn't needed.

9/17/2005 10:47 AM


Half A Potato

Half A Potato

Last Seen:
10/16/2008 9:27 PM


Posts: 311
Visits: 4,930

The Highway bill is being cut If they get rid of the bridge in alaska its something like 800 million right there, so there should be enough Money to help the city
9/17/2005 7:26 PM


Grognard fantôme

Grognard fantôme

Last Seen:
Today @ 8:02 PM


Posts: 7,350
Visits: 9,706

What reason would Bush have to care about his "image" given that he cannot run for President again?

. . . Oh yeah, I forgot, he IS the President, and solidarity behind the leader WOULD strengthen the nation.

That's an interesting amount of stuff Cuba putatively offered to send Garrison.

One of my classmates did her fieldwork down there. Surviving the dengue epidemic "that never happened" (on the books anyway) kinda changed her rosy view of that "utopia." Well, that and the palpable sense of anxiety about any open discussion among the people, as well as the relentless "research facilitators," who kept close tabs on her and her work.

It was quite poignant because she left the US equally a revolutionary as her radical left-wing advisor, but came back without much good to say about Cuba. What is even more putrid is, her advisor then sought to black ball her and keep her from finishing her dissertation. She eventually had toget a university review board to counter her advisors stonewalling. Talk about censorship!? But I guess if capitalism, and Republicans are "evil," then anything is justified, eh?
9/17/2005 7:50 PM


Designated Norwegian

Designated NorwegianDesignated NorwegianDesignated NorwegianDesignated NorwegianDesignated NorwegianDesignated NorwegianDesignated NorwegianDesignated Norwegian

Last Seen:
Today @ 6:23 PM


Posts: 3,346
Visits: 10,824

-Great play by Cuba. No matter what Bush says Cuba comes off as the helping hand. If he accepts it he is admitting that the USA needs help from it's "enemy", Cuba. If he rejects it Cuba will be seen upon as the frienldy nation that the US doesn't want anything to do with and Bush seems a bit careless about the disaster. Lets chalk another one up there for Cuba then.
9/19/2005 12:07 AM


General

General

Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 11:48 PM


Posts: 3,798
Visits: 5,141

Hehe, we better chalk up Cuba as one of the evil countries that Scipio does not give his famous benefit of the doubt...
9/19/2005 4:39 AM


Telepathic Surgeon

Telepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic SurgeonTelepathic Surgeon

Last Seen:
11/24/2008 9:01 AM


Posts: 1,887
Visits: 3,538

Well one thing is certain......only Cuba is guilty of propaganda......eh Scip?