Stephen Moore, senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal, put some perspective on the more than $200 billion in federal money expected to be spent on Katrina recovery. “We could give every one of the 500,000 families displaced by Katrina a check for $400,000, and they could each build a beachfront home virtually anywhere in America,” he wrote.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
33 Comments
Except that would be actually BENEFITTING the poor. Conservatives don’t do that. They have to run the money through a few big multinational corporations first.
Top of the list–yup, no surprise, Halliburton Incorporated.
Looks like another little something extra in the VP’s paycheck this month . . .
You’re forgetting; that $400,000 is the GROSS pay. After the politicians and the companies that will get the no-bid contracts to rebuild the city get their cut, those people will be lucky to net $1.95!
Not that I am especially crazy about the idea, but to be fair to Cheney, his deferred compensation from Haliburton is in the neighborhood of $130,000 (a little more than I make :)) per year. As I understand it, this income is at a fixed rate and he does not get any more or less whether Haliburton makes money, or not.
Oh yes, by all means, let’s just give each displaced family a $400,000 check so they can build beachfront houses.
Problem..who will pay to rebuild the bridges to get to those houses? Who will rebuild the water/sewer systems for those houses? Who is going to clean up the storm debris? Can we trust the individual families to pay for the infrastructure repairs?Of course not.Amazing..now people are complaining about the amount of money to be spent..when a short time ago those same people were complaining about limited relief effort. Is there no pleasing people?
Stephen Moore, senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal, is more of a pro-Zionist Neocon instigator than a objective journalist or economist. He has his little axe to grind. Money allocated for New Orleans will be used mostly to rebuild the world’s fifth largest Sea-Port {by yearly tonnage shipped}. As any Zionist hooligan, he doesn’t bother to a responsible journalist, and deliberately leaves out important pertinent facts about the Port of New Orleans, which interfere with his lust for money for world conquest by the Jewish State of Israel.
America, of which he cares little, needs the New Orleans Sea Port to stimulate the US economy. Notice how he fails to mention that his Israeli settlers, his buddies, get $500,000 each from the US Treasury for leaving Gaza { Palestinian Property they have no right to on in the first place} and also receive new homes in the West Bank, free {again Palestinian Property}. In addition his “settler buddies” are receiving extremely high annual incomes for life, again from the US taxpayer, without having to work.
The Wall Street Journal has become nothing more than a dirty little propaganda sheet for Israel { or did that Zionist bastard mention the Port of New Orleans, or did the WSJ editors insist that the Port of New Orleans be mentioned}.
Just in: “Moore did mention Mississippi River Ports.”
OK, When is the last time anyone has seen an Ocean Going Ship being able to navigate the Mississippi River? Well, Mr. Smart-ass Zionist, they can’t. The Port of New Orleans is a must. It takes a Barge to navigate that river, and when is the last time you saw a barge crossing an Ocean?
Moore and the WSJ were being deliberate deceptive. And they knew it. { ever seen a oil tanker going up-river, well they can’t do that either }
Steven–Cheney still holds stock options. That’s where the real money is. When the company’s stock goes up, and coincidentally it hit a historic HIGH the other day, Cheney profits.
” they could each build a beachfront home virtually anywhere in America ”
Moore, you stupid lying Zionist thug, try to build a beachfront home in Kansas, or any State not facing an ocean.
If Ariel Sharon makes a sharp turn, your nose will break-off
Ray! You are the only person that makes sense.
Galahad,Does Cheney have to publicly disclose information about his stock holdings? I’m sure the IRS releases annual income figures for Bush & Cheney. I would not think that there would be actual evidence of what Cheney’s stock portfolio would look like. After all, he is able to keep government funded meetings with energy companies secret – I would bet not much sunshine penetrates his personal finances.
Also, I guess I wanted to believe that the Haliburton/Bush/Cheney connection just had the appearance of a conflict of interest, rather than there being an actual existence of one.
Steven, The whole rotten buch in Washington needs to be in Gitmo. They built it, so they deserve be to be living there. After all, a little torture is a “good thing” to find-out how much they’ve stolen.
“Except that would be actually BENEFITTING the poor. Conservatives don’t do that.”
From Bill Oreilly’s web site:”Dean pointed out that the poor got hammered, and that was Bush’s fault because of tax cuts for the rich or some such nonsense. Jackson and Dean ran around grabbing cameras and microphones, howling at the moon, booking first class seats on the cheap shot express.
Their rhetoric was so over the top that even though I’m not a Republican, I feel it is my patriotic duty to provide some truth in the matter of the Bush administration vis-à-vis the poor. So here are the facts with apologies to the propagandists.
We’ll begin by comparing the halfway point of President Clinton’s tenure to the fifty yard line of the Bush administration. In 1996, the poverty level in the USA stood at 13.7%. In 2004, the poverty level was 12.7%, so Bush beats Clinton here by a full percentage point. To be fair, Clinton did bring the poverty rate down during his administration, while it has been rising slightly since 9/11. But at the halfway point, Bush wins.
As far as entitlement spending on poverty programs is concerned, it isn’t even close. In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2% of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush’s budget kicked 2% more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion dollars. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history. What say you, Jesse and Howard?
For a country that is often accused by leftwing loons of not caring about the poor, we are certainly putting up a good front. In 2006, almost $368 billion dollars will go for Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, earned income tax credits, welfare payments, child care payments, foster care and adoption assistance, and child health insurance payments to the states. The truth is that the working men and women of this country are providing the tightest safety net in history for the poor. And our private charitable donations rank first in the world as well.
So the next time the poverty propagandists start with the “America ignores the poor” bull, simply walk away. These people are blatantly dishonest and could not care less that America does, indeed, help the less fortunate. The race and class baiters will always ignore the fact that some people simply cannot support themselves no matter what society does.”
NoJo, That’s amazing! I think credibility went into the crapper when we got to the part:”even though I’m not a Republican,”.
OReilly isn’t a republican?Yeah, and the Pope isn’t a Catholic.I suspect the numbers….I figure OReilly is doing what he does best.He’s lyiiiiing.
Bill O’Reilly–the guy who claims he won two Peabody’s when really a show he was once on won a Polk (when he was no longer on the show).
Here’s how MediaMatters debunked him once again–
http://mediamatters.org /
“On his nationally syndicated radio show, The Radio Factor, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly again compared the poverty rate at the midpoint of both the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies to argue that Bush has more effectively alleviated poverty in the United States. Ignoring the overall trend lines during their respective White House tenures, O’Reilly claimed that comparing the 1996 and 2004 numbers is the “only fair comparison” and the “only accurate measuring stick.” But as Media Matters for America has noted — and as Radio Factor caller “Larry” repeated — such a comparison obscures the more relevant fact that the poverty rate declined every year of the Clinton presidency and has increased every year under the Bush presidency.”
And check this out–
“Since Congress passed President Clinton’s Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-...
The poverty rate, really, has hovered around 12-14 percent since LBJ’s War on Poverty — before that, it was in the low 20s.
*****
Of course, O’Liely wants to compare Clinton’s mid term numbers to Bush’s mid term numbers. What he doesn’t want to do, is point out that Clinton’s were on the way DOWN from Reagan/Bush, and BushJr’s are on the way UP from Clinton’s recent low.
What a despicable liar he is . . .
Very good de-bunking Galahad!The main thing I learned from my advance statistic courses is that statistics can be manipulated to prove anything.The sad thing is that most of the general public (and voters) don’t look farther that the TV or radio talk shows for their information…O’Reily (and the Bush admin) know this and use it to their advantage.
Don’t forget, Tracy/Galahad, that the Clinton administration messed with the definition and assesment of “poverty level” to assure that it “decreased every year”.
No, they didn’t. It went down because unemployment went down and economic growth went up.
Cite some evidence for your very dubious claim, Pap, or if you can’t, shut up.
Galahad,You still have not proved that:
“Except that would be actually BENEFITTING the poor. Conservatives don’t do that.”
What part of Clinton’s lowering the poverty rate every year he was in office and W’s raising it every year in office didn’t you understand, NoJo?
Okay, I typed that real slow for you . . .
Glahad,
In 2006, almost $368 billion dollars will go for Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, earned income tax credits, welfare payments, child care payments, foster care and adoption assistance, and child health insurance payments to the states.
Yup, the old “lump it altogether” scam.
And the vast majority of that money will go to healthcare providers benefiting from medicaid. And how is “child health insurance” different from medicaid?
Food stamps are, let’s face it, another subsidy for agriculture.
And we still have no idea who gets the rest, “faith based foster care?” and how it breaks out, even if true–and coming from O’Liely, there’s no quality assurance.
The question is this–who helped the poor more, Clinton or Bush.
Answer, Clinton, by gettting more poor out of poverty. Bush’s policies push more people INTO poverty, despite what he claims to spend on them.
nojo?
You must feel awful picked on right about now. But once you know more about Bill O’Reilly, you will see that you hung a grapefruit up there for any poster to knock out of the park.
Galahad already did a great job of blowing O’reillys arguement (which you embrace) apart.
Having blogged here for some time, I must credit you NoJo with at least putting the name on your particular bloviating talking points mentor of choice. That took courage that the regular hannitized ditto head posters do not show. They parrot the words, but claim them as their own. You took a first courageous step in admitting that your thoughts were not truly your own.
Now Galahad is helping you make the next step is showing you that the thoughts you embraced and posted here were erroneous…….even fallacious.
I’d like to help you Nojo with the final step. I want you to get ahold of the audio book version of O’reilly’s “Those who trespass”. Once you hear the no spin voice of the “Factor” reading sophomoric, poorly written (he wrote it!) porn, you will never hear the man quite the same ever again!
Amen, JR. Or just read Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.”
He catches O’Liely out in so many egregious and obvious lies and O’Liely gamely sticks to his story.
Did I say “gamely.” I meant “lamely.”
I love when he talks about “being in combat.” He’s a JOURNALIST! (well, kinda) He was never in the military. He heard gunshots from a klik away once, maybe.
That’s O’Reilly . . .
Oh, I almost forgot. The unwanted sex calls to his female producer in which he masturbated (yup, you read that right) while she tried to get off the phone and not get fired by this arrogant ass.
There’s that Republican power sex thing going on again . . . I wonder what the good Dr. Freud would say about that, hmmm.
Here’s my problem with Bizzaro Rush’s (AKA Galahad): First of all, his assumption that conservatives, republicans, or whatever label he wants to put on people who don’t agree with him, don’t do anything for the poor is absolutely rediculous and a generalization that must be challenged.
I have a strong feeling that Bizzaro Bush spews lies from the extreme left, but doesn’t admit to parroting either. I don’t believe what Bizzaro Bush has to say on a majority of the posts because he is so full of hate that he has no credibility with me – and probably most of the people who read the WE Blog.
He has provided no evidence to counter what I have posted, he has spewed leftist propaganda that is full of spin and compares with the lies and spin that comes from the far right.
You may get the idea that I’m not fond of either the far left nor the far right. They have divided this country because they scream the loudest.
I have been listening to O’reilly lately. I think he does point out the problems with the extreme left views. The verdict isn’t in on what I think of him. I don’t know what sophomoric, poorly written porn has to do with his political views. Have you actually listened to him or are you spouting something you read on a web blog?
Galahad/Tracy is too immature to bother with and obviously has all day to plink away at the keyboard. Most of us just pass over his/her posts without reading tham, and refuse to respond to him/her. It does no good to attempt an argument, let alone a discussion, with him. He/she is one of those who give adolescence a bad name.
Puny–
Here’s something for you chew on . . . other than the cheese puffs your mom brings down to you from time to time.
“For the first time, senior Republican consultants and lawmakers are warning the White House that Bush’s base is perilously close to deserting him. The poll underscores their concerns: By an 8-point margin, voters are more likely to call themselves Democrats than Republicans; there was no gap in self-identification a year ago.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050920/ap_on_go_pr_wh/katr...
O’Reilly is a total sell-out to the right-wing. The idea that he refutes the “lies of the left” is absurd. In the Webster’s Dictionary, they put O’Reilly’s picture next to the entry on “liar.”
BTW, NoJo– The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos.
Dante reserved a particularly unpleasant place in Hell for those who wouldn’t take sides.
And one last thing, when liberals take a measured tone like Dukkais and Gore, we’re “passionless” and “wooden.”
When we show fire and passion like Howard Dean, we’re “out of control” and “full of hate and anger.”
George W. Bush can’t even speak his native language but, by golly, that just shows he’s a “man of the people.”
There’s no point in letting people who disagree with you define you or trying to change to make them like you.
If you think I’m full of “hate,” then good. Like Listerine, the burn means it’s working . . .
QED
dooda, You are right. I need to just bypass him/her like I do Ed.Other posters such as Brian, JR, CF and the like, can put up their side without the antics. So, even though I disagree with them a lot of the time, I can respect them.
I thought the question was about giving $400,000 to each of the Katrina disaster recepiants? No one has responded to that initial question. You made alot of noise but, you didn’t address the question.
I just wonder, how much of the 400,000, would be spent on new Nike Air Jordan shoes, at $125.00 a pair?How much for an Escalade, or any cool ride. And don’t forget the jewelry (preferably gold.)
Before we start handing out this money, to anybody asking or expecting it, we need to establish some qualifications. If not, they’re not gonna be any better off in the long run. They’ll just blow it all and be right back in the same situation. Homeless, no job, no reason to get one because, the govn’ment gonna take care of us.
Well James, they’ll just give the money to Halliburton and it’ll wind up in politicians pockets.