Bush's Speech

[AlexRS]

Great point, but the average conservative would have you believe that someone else would have been worse. The truth is that Bush isn't a conservative EXCEPT in areas that are concerning social issues.

IMO, This Bush is the worst president of my life time, he's the polar opposite of what I'd want as a president. I'd prefer a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I'm not saying ________ would have been better, but it's time people understand the truth of the matter and call it like it is.

Bravo! :applause:

and thanks for kind words chom I cannot believe somebody would think they picked random people off the street and asked them questions on live TV :laugh: hehe not before, and definitely not after the Kayne West experiment :laugh:

[flyingtiger1013]

I wouldn't count Mark Warner out as a candidate for POTUS. I think that's why he's not running against Allen.

[Predicto]

Great point, but the average conservative would have you believe that someone else would have been worse. The truth is that Bush isn't a conservative EXCEPT in areas that are concerning social issues.

IMO, This Bush is the worst president of my life time, he's the polar opposite of what I'd want as a president. I'd prefer a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I'm not saying ________ would have been better, but it's time people understand the truth of the matter and call it like it is.

Ding ding ding! WINNAR!

[chomerics]

Great point, but the average conservative would have you believe that someone else would have been worse. The truth is that Bush isn't a conservative EXCEPT in areas that are concerning social issues.

IMO, This Bush is the worst president of my life time, he's the polar opposite of what I'd want as a president. I'd prefer a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I'm not saying ________ would have been better, but it's time people understand the truth of the matter and call it like it is.

:notworthy:

Just listened to Rush as I got my lunch, Larry's right. Talking points were "if you happened to see the people interviewed after the speech on ABC, this is how they (evacuees) think" :rotflmao:

Man, just the mere fact that this morning it was on all the RW bloggers sites should have opened up some eyes. That, and the fact that all the bloggers are only posting one interview, and not the whole thing, because when you watch all three minutes of it, you can see what a setup it was.

[Kilmer17]

Am I the only guy that watched MSNBC?

Seriously, every person they talked to criticized Bush and basically said they didnt believe his speech.

Where they scripted?

If you had said this was FoxNews, I might believe it to an extent. And If I saw the same interviews from MS on CNN, Id certainly believe it was staged.

But ABC?

First, I cant believe anybody watches ABC, but more important, what dog do they have in the fight?

[flyingtiger1013]

CBS Radio (WTOP) this morning had 2/3 positive quotes and the rest fair to bad. Surprised me.

[chomerics]

Am I the only guy that watched MSNBC?

Seriously, every person they talked to criticized Bush and basically said they didnt believe his speech.

Where they scripted?

I usually watch MSNBC as well, but for some reason I just happened to hit ABC when it started.

I don't know if they were scripted, and I didn't check for eye movements ie cuecards, but they were definately cherry picked for their answers.

I heard the same thing about MSNBC and CNN, and them being critical for Bush. ABC has a Bush love-fest on. Didn't flip on Fox until later, but I cauget the O'Reily - Schumer interview, it was pretty good.

If you had said this was FoxNews, I might believe it to an extent. And If I saw the same interviews from MS on CNN, Id certainly believe it was staged.

But ABC?

First, I cant believe anybody watches ABC, but more important, what dog do they have in the fight?

That's what made me so suprised Kilmer. If it was Fox I was watching, I would have thought absolutely nothing of it, but ABC? It just shocked the hell out of me.

We all know the media is fake anyways. There is such little content that is actual news, that's why I was enthraled with Katrina. For the first time in years, I saw some real reporting. I can't stand the fake people in politics on both sides, and I'm really upset there aren't any "real" canidates out there, just talking heads for their factions.

I honestly think a third party needs to emerge to break up this crap, a moderate branch of the repubs and dems. I mean when you look at the platforms, they have a LOT more in common with each other then they do with their parties, yet they always vote on party lines because of internal pressure. For example, the republican from LA who chose not to vote rather then vote against his party when they declined an independent investegation.

I always thought growing up it was a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", but as I get older I realize it is a government rules by the same social circles as the people who founded the country. They never let go of power, and it is time we, as citizens take our country back.

:soapbox:

[/rant]

Kind of nice to have a discussion with you Kilmer, and not a right vs left argument

[luckydevil]

Just wanted to add, I hated the speech

The man really is LBJ Jr. FDR could have delivered that speech

It's depressing being a libertarian right now.

[Kilmer17]

Kind of nice to have a discussion with you Kilmer, and not a right vs left argument

F off libby.

[Kilmer17]

chom, the reality is much much worse than even that.

I spent time working on the hill. And I can recall a day on the Senate floor (I was working for Warner) when Warner and Kennedy exchanged viscious jabs and barbs over some nonsense appropriations crap.

After it was over, Kennedy came back to our office and the two of them drank scotch and smoked cubans (seriously).

At that point I knew the whole thing was a sham.

[flyingtiger1013]

chom, the reality is much much worse than even that.

I spent time working on the hill. And I can recall a day on the Senate floor (I was working for Warner) when Warner and Kennedy exchanged viscious jabs and barbs over some nonsense appropriations crap.

After it was over, Kennedy came back to our office and the two of them drank scotch and smoked cubans (seriously).

At that point I knew the whole thing was a sham.

I have a lot of stories like that from my time on the Hill, also. I was up there from '96-'98, when were you up there Kilmer?

[Baculus]

At that point I knew the whole thing was a sham.

One word: Republocrats

[chomerics]

chom, the reality is much much worse than even that.

I spent time working on the hill. And I can recall a day on the Senate floor (I was working for Warner) when Warner and Kennedy exchanged viscious jabs and barbs over some nonsense appropriations crap.

After it was over, Kennedy came back to our office and the two of them drank scotch and smoked cubans (seriously).

At that point I knew the whole thing was a sham.

Yea, I had you pegged for an insider in the back of my head :laugh:

Personally, If I ever get involved in politics I am going to be the person who I am. America desperately needs a canidate who will just get out there and tell the truth. It's been so long since we've seen a politician with some actual honesty and integredy it's mindboggling. We need to get these meat heads out of there and start to transfer power to people who actually give a crap about our future.

Are there some good politicians? Sure, there are, the problem is that are 10 criminals for every good one. Politics is all about money, and it should not be. It should be about the country, and making our country better. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, we lost our focus, but now we have to get it back.

Thanks for the discussion, and I'll see if I can get the video of the ABC interview up tonight, I think you will actually start laughing when you see it, very funny.

[chomerics]

It's depressing being a libertarian right now.

I feel your pain Lucky. . . I'm not a libertarian, but I definately have the same spending mentality as you.

[wskin44]

One word: Republocrats

Here's another word: ****roaches.

[visionary]

Rebuilding the Gulf, but at what cost?

Economists say Bush's reconstruction plan is necessary; some wonder if the government can afford it.

September 16, 2005: 5:14 PM EDT

By Paul R. La Monica, CNN/Money senior writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - With President Bush promising a big push to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many are wondering how the government's going to pay for all this.

Speaking at the White House Friday afternoon, Bush said that although rebuilding the Gulf Coast would be expensive, he was "confident we can handle it and our other priorities." He said the government will "have to cut unnecessary spending" and should not raise taxes.

He declined to give an estimate for how much the rebuilding would cost or suggest where the money might come from.

The president said in a nationally televised speech Thursday night that the federal government will pick up most of the tab for the relief effort. Congress has already approved $62 billion in aid, and reconstruction costs are estimated to be at least $200 billion.

Some analysts worried that Katrina could hurt the economy by raising the budget deficit and pushing up interest rates. The impact of higher rates, could be far-ranging, some economists said, affecting everything from economic growth to how much you pay in taxes to the rate on your mortgage.

But others said this was not a big risk, and that the extra federal spending may end up giving the economy a boost.

Before Katrina hit, the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan budget arm of Congress, estimated that the federal budget deficit in fiscal 2006, which starts next month, would be $314 billion, down from an estimated $331 billion in the current fiscal year.

A spokeswoman for the CBO said Friday it was still too soon to gauge the impact of increased spending on next year's deficit.

But Friday morning, White House economic adviser Allan Hubbard said that the recovery effort would add to the deficit, though he added that these would be one-time costs, and echoed Bush's comments about not raising taxes. The Bush administration still hopes to make permanent tax cuts that are set to expire in 2008, such as the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

Hubbard also said that Bush remains committed "to cutting the deficit in half by 2009." (For more on Hubbard's comments, click here.)

Treasury Secretary John Snow said in a speech Friday that "with continued economic strength," the United States "will be able to help our neighbors and continue to reduce our deficit."

Increased spending a cause for concern...

Still, some are skeptical. Ethan Harris, chief U.S. economist with Lehman Brothers, had been estimating a deficit of $350 billion before Katrina and now expectsthe budget deficit to reach a record $450 billion in the coming fiscal year.

"We know there is going to be a huge amount of money spent but the timing of the spending is hard to figure out," he said.

Others believe the deficit could go even higher.

"The budget deficit is going to have to go up over the next three to seven years," said Barry Ritholtz, chief market strategist for Maxim Group, a New York-based investment firm, adding that it wouldn't be a surprise if the deficit wound up as high as $500 billion in fiscal 2006.

What's more, Ritholtz worries that a growing budget deficit could slow down the economy.

"When the government is running an enormous deficit, that has the tendency to suck up capital that would otherwise wind up in private sector," he said.

Ashraf Laidi, chief currency analyst with MG Financial Group, added that even though Hurricane Katrina is a one-time event, it might be wise for Congress to reconsider its stance on making tax cuts permanent in order to avoid a ballooning deficit.

"The budget deficit is on the radar again due to the emergency spending packages and the lack of any freeze or phasing out of tax cuts," Laidi said.

...or economic stimulus?

Others say that the government should borrow more money to pay for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast and that the increased debt will not have a major burden on the economy.

"In the end, we can work this out. It is $200 billion in spending for a $12 trillion economy," said Mark Vitner, senior economist with Wachovia Corp. "It's just a matter of how we finance it, not whether or not we can afford to do it."

Vitner argues, however, that even though the government may not raise taxes to pay for the reconstruction, the consumer is still likely to feel a pinch from higher interest rates that should come about as a result of the increased borrowing.

"When the federal government increases the budget deficit it increases interest rates on everybody, so it is like a tax increase on borrowing. What that means is that mortgages will be more expensive," Vitner said.

Lyle Gramley, a former Federal Reserve governor and now senior economic advisor with the Stanford Washington Research Group, agreed that an increase in the budget deficit next year would not be detrimental since it is necessary to rebuild New Orleans.

He said federal spending should also help stimulate the economy, and that could offset some of the effects of higher interest rates.

Still, Gramley believes that the government does need to do a better job of reining in spending overall to bring the budget deficit down over the long haul.

"We still face a longer-range deficit problem and that will be exacerbated by increases in Medicare and Social Security payments," Gramley said. "It would be helpful to bring our budget deficit down longer-term. I worry more about that than this temporary increase in the deficit."

For more about Bush's recovery plan, click here.

Will the Fed shrug off Katrina? Click here.

-- CNN's Washington bureau contributed to this report Top of page

Find this article at:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/16/news/economy/katrinarebuild/index.htm?cnn=yes