Bush ignored New Orleans?????

underdog · 10-09-2005, 08:37 AM

I've heard a lot of criticism recently, especially from black politicians like Charles Rangel, that Bush's ignoring of black people in New Orleans prior to the hurricanes contributed to their plight and even their deaths.

I think folks on both ends of the political spectrum will find W's record regarding government spending in New Orleans enlightening.

Columnist Deroy Murdock asked Heritage Foundation researcher Kirk Johnson to look at the charges against Bush:
[blockquote] I asked Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst Kirk Johnson to look at these neighborhoods...

Using the Consolidated Federal Funds Report"™s latest data, Johnson found that, "œAcross all federal programs, Orleans Parish received $12,645 per capita in fiscal year 2003. At the same time, the national average was $7,089 per capita. Put another way, New Orleans received 78.4 percent more funding per person than the national average."

Johnson also examined 21 low-income-assistance programs. Among them, inflation-adjusted federal poverty spending in Orleans Parish equaled $5,899 per-poor-person in Bill Clinton"™s final, full-fiscal-year 2000 budget. By fiscal 2003, such outlays soared to $10,222. Under Bush, federal anti-poverty spending per-poor-New Orleanian ballooned 73.3 percent, or an average, annual hike of 24.4 percent over three years!

Johnson discovered, for instance, that spending on Immunization Grants dropped 80.51 percent, and Supportive Housing for the Elderly fell 25.6 percent during Bush"™s first three years. However, Child Support Enforcement grew 8.3 percent. Head Start rose 13.8 percent. Food Stamps increased 43.1 percent. Pell Grants advanced 126 percent. Community Health Center funding accelerated 163.6 percent, and so on....

"œIf program spending is the way to judge whether or not Washington cares about New Orleans," Johnson says, "œthen a lot of love has come to New Orleans in recent years."

[/blockquote]

Knightia · 10-09-2005, 08:58 AM

Thats cuz ppl like Charlie rangel dontknow there rectim from a hole in the ground.

But do these figures show bush is more a big spending liberal on social programs then clinton is& was ? The liberal partys best friend& they dont even know it?

Maybe they will after the bilions spent to rebuild& the other giveaways?

underdog · 10-09-2005, 09:08 AM

My point, exactly, Knightia. Bush has allowed spending like a progressive Dem from day one in office and recently it sounds like he's resurrected one of FDR's New Deal speechwriters, yet liberals hate him and think he is the far right based on his pro-life position. But more than that, most just don't make the effort look at the facts.

When dealing with politicians, you have to ignore the rhetoric and look at their actions and voting records. Bush is not that far from Bill Clinton on many issues. Yet most supporters of both think they are opposite ends of the spectrum.

Knightia · 10-09-2005, 09:34 AM

Quote:

When dealing with politicians, you have to ignore the rhetoric and look at their actions and voting records. Bush is not that far from Bill Clinton on many issues. Yet most supporters of both think they are opposite ends of the spectrum.

Of course just a game- same horse one with slightly diffent spots. You will get screwed no matter how you vote(how much is the question)- Lesser of 2 evil thing.

I just cant bring myself to vote for the likes of kerry ,clintions ,rangel ,shumer etc

I sure see old george& slick billy hangin out a bit there days.

I wrote to(r) sen. al simpson once on gun controls awhile back- the letter i got back i swore could have been written by chucky shumer...

rick_reno · 10-09-2005, 09:42 AM

Bush (FDR on a mountain bike) talks a good talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. He's hoping to spend himself into a good legacy.

Champlain Islander · 10-09-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: underdog

When dealing with politicians, you have to ignore the rhetoric and look at their actions and voting records. Bush is not that far from Bill Clinton on many issues. Yet most supporters of both think they are opposite ends of the spectrum.

Kind of makes me wonder if the top dog doesn't really matter all that much. The single person can't get anything done it is the politicians and lobbyists on the hill that control everything. Left and right each fighting for their version only to meet somewhere on the side.

underdog · 10-09-2005, 10:03 AM

I don't think that so far as domestic issues go, having a good president is nearly as important as having a good Congress. The presidents are more or less temporary in the scheme of things, while Congress is dominated by mostly career politicians and most are lawyers.

I believe the solution is more citizen legislators-- or term limits. Fat chance of Congress limiting their terms.

Champlain Islander · 10-09-2005, 10:48 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: underdog

I don't think that so far as domestic issues go, having a good president is nearly as important as having a good Congress. The presidents are more or less temporary in the scheme of things, while Congress is dominated by mostly career politicians and most are lawyers.

I believe the solution is more citizen legislators-- or term limits. Fat chance of Congress limiting their terms.

You are on to something UD. It appears that when members of the legislative branch get too entrenched and start in their second or third decade of service they start to go the other way. Lots of political chronyism starts to happen and they almost get mafia like in their you do for me and I do for you mentality. Fresh minds without the oweing somebody a favor gets the job done. Cut out the pork, which is a result of power and we as tax payers would benefit.

cardeer · 10-09-2005, 12:22 PM

They are all idiots

Knightia · 10-09-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

The presidents are more or less temporary in the scheme of things, while Congress is dominated by mostly career politicians and most are lawyers.

I believe the solution is more citizen legislators-- or term limits. Fat chance of Congress limiting their terms.

Yep we do change the prez a lot but they do havequite a bit of power toi think( maybe we will get a liberal black/women lesbian miget, a friend of ms reno? next prez- from either party)

Term limites would be good& eliminating a few lawyers& the careerpolticans as you say to & i liked that part/ compairsonabout there trading favors/ greasing the wheels like the mafia do to

And alinination of pork& other payoffs& bribs?
big money-

citizen legislators? Not without another revoltion?

A big overhual of the present systems in place anyways(offical or otherwise when its reality& the way things are done then it exists)

presently a 3rd or 4th party wouldnt matter much? It would have to like the present two to compeate ? if nothing changes.