Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
An Early Draft of 100 Things Americans May Not Know About the Bush Administration Record
I have a new article up at Guernica. It's An Early Draft of 100 Things Americans May Not Know About the Bush Administration Record. Here's a little piece of it:
I also have a couple of new reviews up. There is a review of Carlos Reygada's brilliant film Silent Light over at Tiny Mix Tapes, and a review of El Guincho's new disc Alegranza! over at F10. Thanks for reading them, if you do.
PROVIDED UNPRECEDENTED RESOURCES FOR VETERANS
- There are many veterans who received medical attention. Ask one.
- No, not that one. How about the guy next to him.
- No?
- Raise your hand if you are a veteran and are satisfied with your medical coverage.
- You’re going to have to just trust us on this one.
I also have a couple of new reviews up. There is a review of Carlos Reygada's brilliant film Silent Light over at Tiny Mix Tapes, and a review of El Guincho's new disc Alegranza! over at F10. Thanks for reading them, if you do.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Blackwater
So, I was doing a little research for an article today and I came upon this clip. You've probably seen it before, but I hadn't. This is the President responding to questions about what laws do apply to Blackwater USA while they operate in Iraq.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Pinpointing the Problem:
Clearly putting a "Mission Accomplished" on a aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but, nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake. I've thought long and hard about Katrina. You know, could I have done something differently. Like, land Air Force One in either New Orleans or Baton Rouge. The problem with that and, uh, is that...umm...law enforcement would have been pulled away from the mission. And then your questions, I suspect, would have been, "How could you possibly have flown Air Force One into Baton Rouge and police officers that were needed, uh, to expedite traffic out of New Orleans were taken off the task to look after you?"
- President George W. Bush
I just thought it would be of benefit for people to see this portion of his valedictory press conference transcribed. It resonates slightly different would you look at the rhetoric and structure of the statement. This all despite the fact that President revealed during this press conference that there is "no such thing as short term history."
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
100 Things Americans May Not Know About the Bush Administration Record
This list has been all over the hard news sources this last week (Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me, The Daily Show) but I finally just made my way over to the White House website to read this... ... illuminating ... list.
If you have ever seen Bush speak over the past eight years I think there is little chance that you "May Not Know" any most of these. In fact, if you don't know some of these it would be a good reintroduction to the world now that you have woken up from your coma. The number one thing you may not know is that he "KEPT AMERICA SAFE." The bullet point under this ... illuminating ... fact is: "For more than seven years after September 11, 2001, prevented another attack on our homeland."
Really? I did not know that. If you are just waking from your coma and think that's a pretty great record, I'd like to direct your attention to the two words "seven years." In America, our presidents serve terms of four years, unless reelected they serve for eight years. He served for eight years. ...
Point two: "Waged the Global War on Terror." How do they suspect that anyone in America might not know that we are currently neck deep in two wars? The first bullet point under this header is: "Removed threatening regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, which freed 50 million people." I'm curious what happened to those "50 million people" who were "freed," where are they now? In the most dangerous regions in the world? Well, freedom does have it's price.
"Created Institutions to Propel the Spread of Democracy Worldwide, Helped Oppressed People Secure their Freedom, and Strengthened Support for Dissidents and Democracy Activists" How about the RNC protesters, or other "dissidents" in America and abroad that have had their phones tapped without warrants, or the "dissidents" who can't get a trail in Guantanamo?
I don't really want to go through this point by point and berate the president, but there were a couple that I thought were quite funny. This gem: "Confronted Climate Change through Innovation and without Harming our Economy." There really isn't any way to properly start in on this. Clever language, it doesn't outright say he made an impact, or took on "Global Warming." "Without Harming our Economy?" Well, I guess the lack of policy on global warming in general couldn't be said to harm our economy through it's non-existence. But this implies that the economy is fine, if it isn't it's not the Bush Administration's fault, and they really care about the environment. Wow. Again. What can I say? That is something that I did not know about the Bush administration.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Point, Counterpoint, Point
In case you haven't read a frustrated post on here called Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything, David Luke Doody (responses are posted at his blog This Is How I Love You) and I are having a battle in which we agree, but somehow disagree in some abstract way that no one really understands. Here is what has happened some far, followed by the latest counterpoint:
Point (Question):
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything
It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.
Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
-Dustin Luke Nelson
Counterpoint:
There's a book by Dana Nelson called "Bad for Democracy" that shows how over decades and decades--not just through the W years--the presidency has sought and received more and more power, throwing the balance of government completely out of whack. The position becomes more and more like that of a king, and all the while the American people have accepted this piracy of the balance originally sought after by our founding fathers. Think of the language we use: "The leader of the free world," "The most powerful position in the land," et al. This is not what the presidency was supposed to be. It was supposed to be just one branch with no more and no less power than the others, or at least it was supposed to be able to be checked and put in line when it stepped out of that line.
But, more specifically in response to this post, you're right, they won't talk about incendiary issues because they cannot afford to piss anyone off who may be on the fence about those issues. It's like when they say "middle class" but never utter the word "poverty." It's spinning what they say to get votes...a watered down version of tackling the tough topics in order to get votes.
The point is, the position of president carries too much power and importance in the average American's mind. Yes, it is important that our representatives actually discuss important issues. But it's even more important that we not rely on them as much as we do to do anything about those important issues.
The fight does not end on November 5th, even if Obama is elected. Yes, we can all breath a sigh of relief if that is the outcome, because we will have taken a step in the right direction. But, and be sure of this, he is not a savior. He cannot undo all that has been done. He will not be able to retroactively give back all the civil liberties lost over the years. And you can be sure that there will be those fighting tooth and nail to keep the powers and tactics they have become accustomed to. The president is not our king and we cannot simply rely on him to answer all of our questions.
-David Luke Doody
Point:
I would not argue that this (straightforward dialogue on the issues) will ever happen, because that's election year politicking, this is not a new revelation for anyone. But what happens in a presidential race is mimicked extensively in congressional elections. The presidential race sets the tone for the rest of the contests. If we had candidates that weren't concerned that speaking about the issues that could irritate the “on the fence” voters the congressional races would follow suit.
I think there is something to be said for that, because while the president should not be the "king" of America, there is a collective mentality that it is so (to a certain extent). So, whether or not it's true, it is made true by the actions of the constituents.
This is easily exemplified by the debates last night when the moderator asked Palin and Biden how they would act as vice president and if they would use Cheney's interpretation of the vice president’s duties as outlined by the constitution. I don't have the exact quote from the moderator, but she spoke about the constitution being vague on the exact location of power for the vice president. Palin immediately responded that she agreed with Cheney (red flag anyone? The first time anyone besides Bush and Lucifer have publicly agreed with Cheney). The specific branch where the powers of the vice president lie are not vaguely stated in the constitution, he (or potentially she) is a part of the executive branch, he is not a roving force that hovers over all branches of the government. But because someone argues for such powers, and convinces people of them, that can make it reality, whether or not it should be. The mere fact that this was phrased in this fashion and that Palin, without hesitation, responded she subscribes to this doctrine legitimizes this view. The president, especially now, as the executive branch continually expands it's power, the position functions beyond it's equal power doctrine between the branches. The checks and balances are broken.
From Article One of the Constitution:
That said, I agree with you. Any time radical change has come from within the government (it's hard to believe sometimes, but it's happened) it is not a result of a president taking more power into the executive branch, it is a result of a sweeping majority in one party through both houses of Congress. Obama is not the savior, and he isn't going to save the country by becoming president. I certainly believe that it's a step in the right direction, but to see radical change in government it's going to take a whole lot more than a president who is willing to stand up for their policies. (unless they want to tear the constitution to shreds and kind of have a free for all - as has happened recently, but even then, the Republicans had a solid majority when Bush first took office).
- Dustin Luke Nelson
Point (Question):
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything
It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.
Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
-Dustin Luke Nelson
Counterpoint:
There's a book by Dana Nelson called "Bad for Democracy" that shows how over decades and decades--not just through the W years--the presidency has sought and received more and more power, throwing the balance of government completely out of whack. The position becomes more and more like that of a king, and all the while the American people have accepted this piracy of the balance originally sought after by our founding fathers. Think of the language we use: "The leader of the free world," "The most powerful position in the land," et al. This is not what the presidency was supposed to be. It was supposed to be just one branch with no more and no less power than the others, or at least it was supposed to be able to be checked and put in line when it stepped out of that line.
But, more specifically in response to this post, you're right, they won't talk about incendiary issues because they cannot afford to piss anyone off who may be on the fence about those issues. It's like when they say "middle class" but never utter the word "poverty." It's spinning what they say to get votes...a watered down version of tackling the tough topics in order to get votes.
The point is, the position of president carries too much power and importance in the average American's mind. Yes, it is important that our representatives actually discuss important issues. But it's even more important that we not rely on them as much as we do to do anything about those important issues.
The fight does not end on November 5th, even if Obama is elected. Yes, we can all breath a sigh of relief if that is the outcome, because we will have taken a step in the right direction. But, and be sure of this, he is not a savior. He cannot undo all that has been done. He will not be able to retroactively give back all the civil liberties lost over the years. And you can be sure that there will be those fighting tooth and nail to keep the powers and tactics they have become accustomed to. The president is not our king and we cannot simply rely on him to answer all of our questions.
-David Luke Doody
Point:
I would not argue that this (straightforward dialogue on the issues) will ever happen, because that's election year politicking, this is not a new revelation for anyone. But what happens in a presidential race is mimicked extensively in congressional elections. The presidential race sets the tone for the rest of the contests. If we had candidates that weren't concerned that speaking about the issues that could irritate the “on the fence” voters the congressional races would follow suit.
I think there is something to be said for that, because while the president should not be the "king" of America, there is a collective mentality that it is so (to a certain extent). So, whether or not it's true, it is made true by the actions of the constituents.
This is easily exemplified by the debates last night when the moderator asked Palin and Biden how they would act as vice president and if they would use Cheney's interpretation of the vice president’s duties as outlined by the constitution. I don't have the exact quote from the moderator, but she spoke about the constitution being vague on the exact location of power for the vice president. Palin immediately responded that she agreed with Cheney (red flag anyone? The first time anyone besides Bush and Lucifer have publicly agreed with Cheney). The specific branch where the powers of the vice president lie are not vaguely stated in the constitution, he (or potentially she) is a part of the executive branch, he is not a roving force that hovers over all branches of the government. But because someone argues for such powers, and convinces people of them, that can make it reality, whether or not it should be. The mere fact that this was phrased in this fashion and that Palin, without hesitation, responded she subscribes to this doctrine legitimizes this view. The president, especially now, as the executive branch continually expands it's power, the position functions beyond it's equal power doctrine between the branches. The checks and balances are broken.
From Article One of the Constitution:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.
That said, I agree with you. Any time radical change has come from within the government (it's hard to believe sometimes, but it's happened) it is not a result of a president taking more power into the executive branch, it is a result of a sweeping majority in one party through both houses of Congress. Obama is not the savior, and he isn't going to save the country by becoming president. I certainly believe that it's a step in the right direction, but to see radical change in government it's going to take a whole lot more than a president who is willing to stand up for their policies. (unless they want to tear the constitution to shreds and kind of have a free for all - as has happened recently, but even then, the Republicans had a solid majority when Bush first took office).
- Dustin Luke Nelson
Monday, September 29, 2008
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything
It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.
Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
An appendix to my post on the 35W bridge collapse
Again I will try to be brief, as I will not provide anything you can't find in any newspaper, anywhere. But President Bush visited Minneapolis today and I had the pleasure of listening to the speech. During the speech he said something to the effect of we "live in a beautiful country," which was promptly placed as the headline on CNN (a channel that ritualistically never airs news). I thought about this statement and came to the conclusion that once again this may have not been an appropriate thing to say to a city that just experienced disaster, where people have died and many have been injured. I think Amy Klobuchar may have said it better when she said, "a bridge, in America, should never just collapse." Just a thought.
The other reason for this post is I have located a transcript of President Bush's speech which I refer to in the previous post, for further accuracy and fairness I figured I should post the speech so that you can decide for yourself. The speech follows:
“Good morning. I just finished a Cabinet meeting. One of the things we discussed was the terrible situation there in Minneapolis. We talked about the fact that the bridge collapsed, and that we in the federal government must respond and respond robustly to help the people there not only recover, but to make sure that lifeline of activity, that bridge, gets rebuilt as quickly as possible.
To that end, Secretary Peters is in Minneapolis, as well as Federal Highway Administrator Capka. I spoke to Governor Pawlenty and Mayor Rybak this morning. I told them that the Secretary would be there. I told them we would help with rescue efforts, but I also told them how much we are in prayer for those who suffered. And I thank my fellow citizens for holding up those who are suffering right now in prayer.
We also talked about -- in the Cabinet meeting talked about the status of important pieces of legislation before the Congress. We spent a fair amount of time talking about the fact that how disappointed we are that Congress hasn't sent any spending bills to my desk. By the end of this week, members are going to be leaving for their month-long August recess. And by the time they will return, there will be less than a month before the end of the fiscal year on September the 30th, and yet they haven't passed one of the 12 spending bills that they're required to pass. If Congress doesn't pass the spending bills by the end of the fiscal year, Cabinet Secretaries report that their departments may be unable to move forward with urgent priorities for our country.
This doesn't have to be this way. The Democrats won last year's election fair and square, and now they control the calendar for bringing up bills in Congress. They need to pass each of these spending bills individually, on time, and in a fiscally responsible way.
The budget I've sent to Congress fully funds America's priorities. It increases discretionary spending by 6.9 percent. My Cabinet Secretaries assure me that this is adequate to meet the needs of our nation.
Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in Congress want to spend far more. Their budget calls for nearly $22 billion more in discretionary spending next year alone. These leaders have tried to downplay that figure. Yesterday one called this increase -- and I quote -- "a very small difference" from what I proposed. Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a very small difference. And that difference will keep getting bigger. Over the next five years it will total nearly $205 billion in additional discretionary spending. That $205 billion averages out to about $112 million per day, $4.7 million per hour, $78,000 per minute.
Put another way, that's about $1,300 in higher spending every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year for the next five years. That's a lot of money -- even for career politicians in Washington. In fact, at that pace, Democrats in Congress would have spent an extra $300,000 since I began these remarks.
There's only one way to pay for all this new federal spending without running up the deficit, and that is to raise your taxes. A massive tax hike is the last thing the American people need. The plan I put forward would keep your taxes low and balance the budget within five years, and that is the right path for our country.
I want to thank OMB Director Rob Portman for his hard work in developing this plan. This was Rob's last Cabinet meeting. Laura and I wish him and his family well. And I call on the Senate to confirm his successor, Jim Nussle, so we can work together to keep our government running, to keep our economy growing, and to keep our nation strong.
Thank you for your time”
It kind of sounds to me like he is blaming Democrats for the collapse of the 35W bridge. I'm not an architect, nor a politician, but it would seem to me that the collapse of a bridge has little to nothing to do with partisan politics... There’s not much else I want to say about this, I hope the speech speaks for itself. I wouldn’t want to say more for fear of getting off topic with rage or changing topics, saying something in the realm of, “you want to talk about being fiscally responsible with taxpayers money, and that the Democrats won’t give America what it needs to get by, how about the hundreds of billions we are pouring into the Middle East, or the arms deal you just reached where we just give weapons to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.” (My blood pressure is rising I need to go lay down)…
I'm not the only person who seems to think that his abuse of air time for a political agenda was saddening click here for an entry on Dailykos
The other reason for this post is I have located a transcript of President Bush's speech which I refer to in the previous post, for further accuracy and fairness I figured I should post the speech so that you can decide for yourself. The speech follows:
“Good morning. I just finished a Cabinet meeting. One of the things we discussed was the terrible situation there in Minneapolis. We talked about the fact that the bridge collapsed, and that we in the federal government must respond and respond robustly to help the people there not only recover, but to make sure that lifeline of activity, that bridge, gets rebuilt as quickly as possible.
To that end, Secretary Peters is in Minneapolis, as well as Federal Highway Administrator Capka. I spoke to Governor Pawlenty and Mayor Rybak this morning. I told them that the Secretary would be there. I told them we would help with rescue efforts, but I also told them how much we are in prayer for those who suffered. And I thank my fellow citizens for holding up those who are suffering right now in prayer.
We also talked about -- in the Cabinet meeting talked about the status of important pieces of legislation before the Congress. We spent a fair amount of time talking about the fact that how disappointed we are that Congress hasn't sent any spending bills to my desk. By the end of this week, members are going to be leaving for their month-long August recess. And by the time they will return, there will be less than a month before the end of the fiscal year on September the 30th, and yet they haven't passed one of the 12 spending bills that they're required to pass. If Congress doesn't pass the spending bills by the end of the fiscal year, Cabinet Secretaries report that their departments may be unable to move forward with urgent priorities for our country.
This doesn't have to be this way. The Democrats won last year's election fair and square, and now they control the calendar for bringing up bills in Congress. They need to pass each of these spending bills individually, on time, and in a fiscally responsible way.
The budget I've sent to Congress fully funds America's priorities. It increases discretionary spending by 6.9 percent. My Cabinet Secretaries assure me that this is adequate to meet the needs of our nation.
Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in Congress want to spend far more. Their budget calls for nearly $22 billion more in discretionary spending next year alone. These leaders have tried to downplay that figure. Yesterday one called this increase -- and I quote -- "a very small difference" from what I proposed. Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a very small difference. And that difference will keep getting bigger. Over the next five years it will total nearly $205 billion in additional discretionary spending. That $205 billion averages out to about $112 million per day, $4.7 million per hour, $78,000 per minute.
Put another way, that's about $1,300 in higher spending every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year for the next five years. That's a lot of money -- even for career politicians in Washington. In fact, at that pace, Democrats in Congress would have spent an extra $300,000 since I began these remarks.
There's only one way to pay for all this new federal spending without running up the deficit, and that is to raise your taxes. A massive tax hike is the last thing the American people need. The plan I put forward would keep your taxes low and balance the budget within five years, and that is the right path for our country.
I want to thank OMB Director Rob Portman for his hard work in developing this plan. This was Rob's last Cabinet meeting. Laura and I wish him and his family well. And I call on the Senate to confirm his successor, Jim Nussle, so we can work together to keep our government running, to keep our economy growing, and to keep our nation strong.
Thank you for your time”
It kind of sounds to me like he is blaming Democrats for the collapse of the 35W bridge. I'm not an architect, nor a politician, but it would seem to me that the collapse of a bridge has little to nothing to do with partisan politics... There’s not much else I want to say about this, I hope the speech speaks for itself. I wouldn’t want to say more for fear of getting off topic with rage or changing topics, saying something in the realm of, “you want to talk about being fiscally responsible with taxpayers money, and that the Democrats won’t give America what it needs to get by, how about the hundreds of billions we are pouring into the Middle East, or the arms deal you just reached where we just give weapons to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.” (My blood pressure is rising I need to go lay down)…
I'm not the only person who seems to think that his abuse of air time for a political agenda was saddening click here for an entry on Dailykos
Thursday, August 2, 2007
What is there left to say?
So, for those of you who don't know this, I reside in Minneapolis. Probably about 2.5 miles from where the I-35W bridge collapsed yesterday. So, needless to say, I've been monitoring the news on this event constantly since 6 yesterday. I don't have any close friends who were hurt in the incident, some I haven't heard from, but I have no reason to believe anyone I know was hurt. But this is the kind of event that brings some things home at a time when constantly reading the news and keeping up to date can begin to desensitize an individual. People in the city are shaken up, the traffic is a complete disaster, and it is the only news available in the city. Even the sports page of The Star Tribune and The Pioneer Press today were about how the Twins thought it would be best to keep playing last night so they didn't further congest the roads.
But, briefly, there are two points that this event has really driven home, two points that many people in Minneapolis/St. Paul have been talking about, and two things that people across the world reading about this event should try to learn from it as well. Though these are the kind of things that seem to resonate because you feel involved, because it is only miles away instead of on your TV or computer.
Yesterday morning, before the bridge fell, in Baghdad, an ice cream parlor was bombed killing at least 20 and injuring countless more. Now I'm no expert on the geography and consumer market of Iraq, but I would guess, with confidence, that there are not a whole lot of places to take the kids, or ice cream parlors for that matter. Why can't we put the destruction happening in Iraq into perspective? This is bullshit. 20 dead at an ice cream parlor? Fucking kids were there.
Second brief point (that again may not need a lot of explanation, I'll let you fill in the gaps, and one that might answer questions from point one). I've never been a big fan of President Bush, but if you happened to catch his full speech this morning addressing the situation here you may have noticed that he is a tactless, heartless bastard. He spent about a minute and half actually mentioning Minnesota (and in the short span managed to say that he spoke with Governor Pawlenty and Mayor Rybeck and mispronounced both of their names, which leads me to believe he did not speak to anyone this morning but the devil). He then proceeded to spend the rest of his time demanding that the Democrats of congress push through his spending bill, because that was going to help Minneapolis. I know that this is how politics go, and that he certainly has an agenda, he's the president, and this is no revelation, but really... The spending bill has nothing directly to do with Minneapolis and that was completely tactless. During his speech the people of Minneapolis and St. Paul were booing. Waiting to hear from friends they couldn't get a hold of because phone circuits here have been jammed and there is lots of confusion. But since the only thing the news was covering this morning was Minneapolis he needed to get his spending bill some airtime anyhow.
None of this is a revelation, but the world needs perspective and our president needs some tact. I'm too close to all of this to really digress, or try to pull together a point, but these were things I heard discussed often today at the coffee shop where I work. Things that have been on the mind of people from the area today. If nothing else maybe the people of Minnesota will finally decide to cut Norm Coleman out of our lives after Bush's display of indecency today.
But, briefly, there are two points that this event has really driven home, two points that many people in Minneapolis/St. Paul have been talking about, and two things that people across the world reading about this event should try to learn from it as well. Though these are the kind of things that seem to resonate because you feel involved, because it is only miles away instead of on your TV or computer.
Yesterday morning, before the bridge fell, in Baghdad, an ice cream parlor was bombed killing at least 20 and injuring countless more. Now I'm no expert on the geography and consumer market of Iraq, but I would guess, with confidence, that there are not a whole lot of places to take the kids, or ice cream parlors for that matter. Why can't we put the destruction happening in Iraq into perspective? This is bullshit. 20 dead at an ice cream parlor? Fucking kids were there.
Second brief point (that again may not need a lot of explanation, I'll let you fill in the gaps, and one that might answer questions from point one). I've never been a big fan of President Bush, but if you happened to catch his full speech this morning addressing the situation here you may have noticed that he is a tactless, heartless bastard. He spent about a minute and half actually mentioning Minnesota (and in the short span managed to say that he spoke with Governor Pawlenty and Mayor Rybeck and mispronounced both of their names, which leads me to believe he did not speak to anyone this morning but the devil). He then proceeded to spend the rest of his time demanding that the Democrats of congress push through his spending bill, because that was going to help Minneapolis. I know that this is how politics go, and that he certainly has an agenda, he's the president, and this is no revelation, but really... The spending bill has nothing directly to do with Minneapolis and that was completely tactless. During his speech the people of Minneapolis and St. Paul were booing. Waiting to hear from friends they couldn't get a hold of because phone circuits here have been jammed and there is lots of confusion. But since the only thing the news was covering this morning was Minneapolis he needed to get his spending bill some airtime anyhow.
None of this is a revelation, but the world needs perspective and our president needs some tact. I'm too close to all of this to really digress, or try to pull together a point, but these were things I heard discussed often today at the coffee shop where I work. Things that have been on the mind of people from the area today. If nothing else maybe the people of Minnesota will finally decide to cut Norm Coleman out of our lives after Bush's display of indecency today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)