From: curiouslyadrift	Date: September 2nd, 2005 02:39 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

Actually, those on the left who are actually informed have been claiming that following last year's harsh hurricane season, funding for 2006 was cut.

	From: curiouslyadrift	Date: September 2nd, 2005 02:40 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

Or at least, they were going to cut it. Not sure if it has been yet.

	From: reality_hammer	Date: September 2nd, 2005 03:44 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

Nothing like arguing about bills that haven't been passed yet.

Wouldn't draconian cuts come in the year after heavy hurricane activity?

I'm not sure where they get their information, because the actual proposed budget shows funding increases, with continued emphasis on restoring coastal Louisiana.

Louisiana Coast. Over the past 75 years, more than one million acres of the Louisiana coastal plain have submerged into the Gulf of Mexico. Another third of a million acres could be lost by 2050. The affected area supports a coastal wetlands and barrier island ecosystem that is an environmental resource of national significance. The Corps is continuing to work closely with the State of Louisiana to address its coastal problems. The 2006 Budget provides $20 million, an increase of $11.5 million over the 2005 level, with emphasis on the science and technology program; a long-term hydrodynamic study of the Mississippi River; and studies and design work on one or more significant restoration projects

	From: curiouslyadrift	Date: September 2nd, 2005 04:10 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

What I read.

	From: reality_hammer	Date: September 2nd, 2005 04:40 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

Ah, well they don't cite their numbers, and it is Congress rather than the President who appear to be "cutting" the budget.

In addition, they are talking about construction projects, which the President has specifically stated will be put under a "payback" reality check: they have to have a net payoff before they will be funded. Actual "flood control" programs (such as the restoration of wetlands) are indeed being funded. The paper (and others) seem to be conflating pumping operations (which have actually worsened the flooding situation) with flood control programs. It doesn't make sense to keep pumping water out of the canals since that causes increased sinking of the "bowl" where New Orleans sits and simply sucks in more water from the surrounding water table&8212;which has to be pumped out as well.

Indeed, one of the solutions to the loss of wetlands (which increased the damage from the storm surge) would be to allow the Mississippi to flood the wetlands every year.

It is amusing to see the left go against their own demands (for a restoration of wetlands) in order to try and score political points against the President. At least, it would be amusing if it wasn't coming while people are still dying.

	From: culturalbaggage	Date: September 2nd, 2005 02:55 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

http://www2.eps.gov/spg/USA/COE/DACA29/W912P8%2D04%2DB%2D0063/listing.html

the "maintenance left unfinished" stuff - in reality - mostly consisted of planting shrubbery along the inside of the levees. the levees themselves were 100% in place and operational. it's not as if they were still being built and money was diverted from an incomplete structure to fund iraq.

they were built in the late 60s, and only designed to hold up under a category 3 storm at best. if you want to blame someone for that, blame LBJ.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: September 2nd, 2005 02:57 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

just wondering what you think of this story;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9118071/

	From: reality_hammer	Date: September 2nd, 2005 04:16 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

First, a tasteless observation: people seem to be dying to have sex in Africa.

Next: the notion that it is the job of the United States to provide "free" condoms for Africa offends my libertarian sensibilities.

Finally, what does is say about a continent that places so little value on (their own) life that they won't either buy a condom or not have sex with people of unknown AIDS status?

This indicates a problem much more severe than is advertised.

	From: 2dumb4politics	Date: September 2nd, 2005 03:44 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

You're just another liberal twisting facts around. Bush did not cause Katrina, his administration caused additional fall out by slashing flood prevention funding for the Corps of Engineers by 40%, and cancelled other programs regarding flood control and relief.

This is fine. The Iraq war and regressive tax cuts are perfectly acceptable alternatives for the money. Really.

	From: reality_hammer	Date: September 2nd, 2005 07:21 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

You aren't quite clear here.

First, there were no cuts in flood control/prevention, as I demonstrated.

Secondly, tax cuts have brought in more revenue, not less and the "evil rich" haven't even gotten "their" tax cut yet. It will not phase in until 2006.

	From: 2dumb4politics	Date: September 2nd, 2005 07:28 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

Wrong. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20050606/ai_n14657367

And do I really need to link to who's getting the most from the tax cuts? And why are you defending these people? Are they evil? Not at all, though conservative types would consider them unpatriotic, considering that they feel no obligation to this country. "It's my money," forgetting that their wealth is due to the opportunities that this nation provides. It's simple greed- the less than 10% of this country is getting the greater majority of the tax cuts, plain and simple.

Add to that the subsidies and tax cuts from the energy bill. Add to that the repeal of the Estate "Paris Hilton" tax.

I just hammered you with reality, narf!

Stop defending greedy, scummy people as if they're some sort of vulnerable, persecuted segment of the population, besieged by some sort of coalition of anti-American conspirators.

	From: 2dumb4politics	Date: September 2nd, 2005 07:30 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

I could give you further links, but this is in addition the order to halt repair and bolstering of dykes, and previous funding cuts, as well as other modifications to the SELA program.

	From: 2dumb4politics	Date: September 2nd, 2005 07:34 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)

What the hell, here:

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313

Maybe Iraq has hurricanes to fight. I could provide you citations to even more cuts, even earlier, but you are already aware of all of them- keep pretending that Bush is being blamed for the hurricane, and that the only cuts are yet-to-occur in 2006, and that the cuts are okay, and that this is all one big misunderstanding.

	From: reality_hammer	Date: September 2nd, 2005 09:50 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Hundreds of millions spent, but the left whine it is "not enough". Typical

I already posted the fact that there were no cuts. I already posted the fact that the levee that failed was "finished" being rebuilt by the Corps of Engineers.

What you are not quoting from those opinion pieces are the facts that since 2001 hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent. Whining that hundreds of millions more was not spent demonstrates that it is people like you, and not the taxpayers, who are greedy and selfish.

Please bring something more than leftist whining to a contest of facts.

	From: topi	Date: September 2nd, 2005 11:03 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Re: Hundreds of millions spent, but the left whine it is "not enough". Typical

It is pretty sad that this fool is coming to your LJ trying to make a name for themselves in the leftard LJ world...s/he has only proved that they named themselves aptly.

	From: 2dumb4politics	Date: September 2nd, 2005 11:27 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Re: Hundreds of millions spent, but the left whine it is "not enough". Typical

You have provided no facts or arguments to support your opinions, which you haven't even stated.

"Leftard world"? "making a name for [myself]"? What, and who are you referring to?

You have insulted me by invoking my own name- are you saying that the simple quip has flown over your head? It may very well be about people such as yourself.

	From: 2dumb4politics	Date: September 2nd, 2005 11:30 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Re: Hundreds of millions spent, but the left whine it is "not enough". Typical

More extremist ranting- all without facts or sources- in order to bend reality around the facts. Rather than enter any sort of debate with me, you've lodged us into an impass, invoking "the facts" without providing any tangible information, only your own extremist reactionism and imagination.

How does a 40% cut become not a cut? How many fingers am I holding up, Winston? How long have we been at war with East Asia, Winston?

Did the funds diverted to the tax cuts and war in Iraq spontaneously generate themselves? Did the funds from SELA not come from SELA?

	From: reality_hammer	Date: September 2nd, 2005 09:43 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Debunking leftist whines is soooo easy

I've seen that and it is political whining about alleged future cuts.

I'm sure you understand that that has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation.

And you should do some research into the tax cuts because they are going to the people who pay the taxes. It is not that hard a concept. If you pay taxes, you get a tax cut. None of this welfare baloney where you get a tax cut if you don't pay taxes!

The tax cuts were across the board: the bottom rate was reduced to 10%. Everyone gets that rate. The "evil rich" do not get some magic, lower rate. You can make baseless allegations all you like but that does not change reality.

I'm amazed that the left whines about the "lack" of an energy policy on one hand and then tries to criticize the President's energy policy on the other. Wacko leftist groups have stopped the building of refineries and nuclear power plants for decades. Reap what you sow!

Feel free to stop by any time you need to get hammered by reality again! Next time bring some facts, because your BS doesn't fly here.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: September 2nd, 2005 11:25 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
Re: Debunking leftist whines is soooo easy

Leftist whines? I'm a centrist, and I am stating fact.

I've seen that and it is political whining about alleged future cuts.

Second article refers to dates prior to today's date. Today's date is September the 2nd, 2005. You are wrong again.

And you should do some research into the tax cuts because they are going to the people who pay the taxes. It is not that hard a concept. If you pay taxes, you get a tax cut. None of this welfare baloney where you get a tax cut if you don't pay taxes!

This is not in response to anything I have said.

The tax cuts were across the board: the bottom rate was reduced to 10%. Everyone gets that rate. The "evil rich" do not get some magic, lower rate. You can make baseless allegations all you like but that does not change reality.

Exactly. 10% of a ten million dollar salary is much higher than 10% of a 20,000 salary. For most people, for the people that need a break, it means a pitiful $200. And why do the wealthy need tax cuts at all? We know from Reaganomics that "trick down" is not only crass, but does not work. It was known before the tax cuts were implemented that it would not boost the economy.

I'm amazed that the left whines about the "lack" of an energy policy on one hand and then tries to criticize the President's energy policy on the other. Wacko leftist groups have stopped the building of refineries and nuclear power plants for decades. Reap what you sow!

An energy policy is a thing that can take only one form? The "energy policy" you refer to is mostly billion dollar tax breaks for the energy industry, which is experiencing record profits. The only sound thing I've heard come from this "policy" is meager- to delay daylight savings time. It's a tiny change, however clever I may think it is.

Most protests were against carelessly operated nuclear power plants. Today, nuclear power plants would be much, much safer. Finally, Bush has recieved little to no criticism for his proposal to build new nuclear generators- it's one of the few noble things that he has proposed, and I have lauded him for it.

Republicans, on the other hand, accused Al Gore of "wanting to scrap the internal combustion engine," based on the book he wrote on the environment, decades ago. They accused Debbie Stabenaw of wanting to "steal your SUVs!" It was under Bush's watch that SUVs were moved to a different class of vehicle, so that they would not fall under emissions standards restritions. It was this administration that pulled us out of the Kyoto protocol.

Reap what who sows?

Feel free to stop by any time you need to get hammered by reality again! Next time bring some facts, because your BS doesn't fly here.

You were mostly talking to yourself, speaking in generalities, stereotypes, and insults. What facts? You've been hammered again. Lollerskates narf.

	From: reality_hammer	Date: September 3rd, 2005 12:53 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Re: Debunking leftist whines is soooo easy

Call yourself what you like, you are only repeating leftist talking points, so that is what you look like.

Again, I posted cited facts you posted link to opinions. There's a difference!

I'm glad you agree that everyone gets the 10% bottom rate. That is how you define "fair". Everyone gets treated the same. To do otherwise is to play class warfare games.

We know from the Reagan years that tax cuts work. They worked in the 1920s, in the 1960s in the 1980s and again in the 2000s. Lower rates lead to greater economic activity which leads to higher revenues.

The left prevented the construction of energy production centers and now we see where that has led us. Thus "reap what you sow". Refuse to build energy production facilities and you'll have problems with energy production in the future.

Again I have met your rhetoric with cited facts. Again you have lost. Some people like that kind of thing and keep coming back for more. I'm happy to oblige!

	From: topi	Date: September 3rd, 2005 02:01 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Re: Debunking leftist whines is soooo easy

Well said bro. The Leftards are like trained monkees; just add a glass of "Bush sucks" and they start jumping up and down and screeching like -- well, trained monkees.

	From: 2dumb4politics	Date: September 2nd, 2005 11:26 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Re: Debunking leftist whines is soooo easy

That last post was by me.

	From: 2dumb4politics	Date: September 2nd, 2005 11:41 pm (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Allow me to change the subject.

I'm going to perform a diagnostic test on your ability to percieve simple reality, at the same time, I will educate you as to what a partisan- or "leftard" or "republitard" is.

Hilary Clinton is a partisan. She puts loyalty to her party and petty politics ahead of her duties as a Senator, making her a partisan.

George W. Bush is a partisan. He puts loyalty to his party and petty politics ahead of his duties as acting Presient, making him a partisan.

The narrator of the clip I am about to show you is also a partisan.

However, the clips that he is presenting are very clear, unaltered, and deliver a simple message. What the two people featured in the two separate clips are saying is absolutely true.

The following link leads to a video clip approximately 1.1 megabytes in size, and should be reasonable for someone of any Internet connection speed to download. The link leads directly to a download query, and is, to my knowledge, free of spyware and virii (I have downloaded it myself).

Please ignore what the partisan narrator has to say, and pay attention to what the two featured speakers say. Summarized, in as few words as necessary, what the speakers have claimed.

No hints.

	From: reality_hammer	Date: September 3rd, 2005 12:03 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Re: Allow me to change the subject.

Sheesh. The Bush administration has been incredibly ethical about the way the speak of Iraq. They advertised stockpiles so they admit that no stockpiles were found.

That doesn't meant that sero weapons were found. In fact, dozens were found including chemical and biological weapons.

I've been documenting them for months.

	From: 2dumb4politics	Date: September 3rd, 2005 01:41 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Re: Allow me to change the subject.

Oh no, depleted rounds that America probably sold to them, or were forgotten in the desert- so many that I almost can't count them on my hands and toes.

Congradulations, you haven't failed the test, but I'm marking you off for one major error. They're admitting that no "stockpiles" were found? Actually, no, for this administration to admit any of its mistakes would lead straight to courts marshall and possible execution for most of its members. They have admitted to no mistakes.

Your mind blocked-out the part of dates of the clip: 2001. I knew Saddam had no WMD, they knew Saddam had no WMD- we all knew this before the invasion.

	From: topi	Date: September 3rd, 2005 12:09 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Re: Debunking leftist whines is soooo easy

Keep telling it like it is bro. Make the letards bark and howl like the trained barnyard animals they are.

	From: 2dumb4politics	Date: September 3rd, 2005 01:42 am (UTC)		(Link to this entry)
	Re: Debunking leftist whines is soooo easy

shore nuff man yup saddam caused 9/11 tell it like it is hoooey.