President Bush's Mess

[full time]

Full Time-I agree with some of your comments and disagree with others. I would be interested on your opinion regarding the status of political corruption in New Orleans today, versus August, 2005.

Is Bob still walking around free? Here's a nice article about that group of characters.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/25/nation/na-levee25

On another note, I noticed that the head of the City's real estate agency didn't pay property taxes for a couple of properties held by his privately owned real estate companies. Sounds about par for the course. Isn't my good friend Cates a judge there now - I mean sheesh, how much better can it be?

 

[poppy]

Just one clarification - We never had a budget surplus, the surplus under Clinton was based on excess social security income. If you removed that from general accounting government throughout Clinton's 8 years was still spending more than it took in.

Is this the same nonexistent budget surplus the Republicans were trying to take credit for and wanting to use for tax cuts?

 

[Matt J]

Is Bob still walking around free? Here's a nice article about that group of characters.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/25/nation/na-levee25

On another note, I noticed that the head of the City's real estate agency didn't pay property taxes for a couple of properties held by his privately owned real estate companies. Sounds about par for the course. Isn't my good friend Cates a judge there now - I mean sheesh, how much better can it be?

So if a city, county, parish, or state has corruption it shouldn't be eligible for any kind of aid? That'll definitely help with the national budget crisis and deficit as not one single square inch of the United States would be eligible.

 

[poppy]

Just one clarification - We never had a budget surplus, the surplus under Clinton was based on excess social security income. If you removed that from general accounting government throughout Clinton's 8 years was still spending more than it took in.

Maybe the best way to determine whether Clinton had a surplus or not is to track the national debt from his first day as President to his last. The Treasury website tracks our national debt on a daily basis. On the day Clinton was sworn in, our debt was $4.188 trillion. On his last day, the debt was $5.728 trillion.

I had to come back to this after re-reading these posts. Are you two talking about the same thing here? Isn't the budget something that ends each fiscal year and the national debt just runs on and on? In other words, if you have a budget and spend less than that budget amount you get a surplus, and if your budgets have a trend of less spending this is where one can project an accumulated surplus for years to come assuming revenues stay pretty much stable. This money can then be spent to reduce the national debt, give tax cuts, start a war, give no bid contracts to your VP's former companies, send billions to a foreign country and lose it because of nonexistent accounting, and maybe then have enough left over to blow on some really dumb sh_t.
I'm no economist so if I'm wrong please, anyone, feel free to set me straight on this one.

 

[30A Skunkape]

Is Bob still walking around free? Here's a nice article about that group of characters.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/25/nation/na-levee25

On another note, I noticed that the head of the City's real estate agency didn't pay property taxes for a couple of properties held by his privately owned real estate companies. Sounds about par for the course. Isn't my good friend Cates a judge there now - I mean sheesh, how much better can it be?

Yes, I understand there was ubercronyism on the levee board's part before the storm (and I am sure you realize the entity no longer exists). Still, that article is from 2005. I am not challenging or attacking you, I am just interested to hear what your take is on New Orleans (or all of Louisiana if you want to go as far back as Uncle Earl) government now versus August, 2005.

 

[LuciferSam]

I had to come back to this after re-reading these posts. Are you two talking about the same thing here? Isn't the budget something that ends each fiscal year and the national debt just runs on and on? In other words, if you have a budget and spend less than that budget amount you get a surplus, and if your budgets have a trend of less spending this is where one can project an accumulated surplus for years to come assuming revenues stay pretty much stable. This money can then be spent to reduce the national debt, give tax cuts, start a war, give no bid contracts to your VP's former companies, send billions to a foreign country and lose it because of nonexistent accounting, and maybe then have enough left over to blow on some really dumb sh_t.
I'm no economist so if I'm wrong please, anyone, feel free to set me straight on this one.

I think the answer is that under Clinton we eliminated the annual deficit so that by the end of the fiscal year we had a surplus. No, we did not get the national debt down to zero, but yes, that annual surplus could have been applied against it. I think that's pretty much what you are saying. I always thought that one of the main reasons for the budget surplus was the extra tax revenue due to the booming economy, stock market etc..

 

[30ashopper]

a couple of you seem to only read what you want, or grab only the stuff you want to beat to death. look above, i indicated that my statement was made off the cuff, but full time wants to take it to the extreme, so ok. yes, i would rather see my tax dollars go to rebuilding a city that our government(bush) has pretty much moved past, than giving it to aig, Lehman, or the auto makers. I don't know how much more plain to make it. i have never disagreed with full time over the corruptness of govt in NO. maybe full time could be the administrator, since he appears beyond reproach. maybe he could come off his pedestal and look forward as to how the money could be administered without it going into the pockets of all the corrupt politicians he seems to know intimately. should we completely write NO off and let it be consumed by the swamp? maybe so, possibly the best thing that could happen to it. i'm sure i'll get some response from ft that i'm so naive, so be it, offer a solution for the town you love so much.

Your beef with fulltime is your business, please keep me out of it. In response to your statement, I think you're mixing two entirely different situations. One is a localized natural disaster, the other is the failure of our banking system. I have no problem with the government helping out NO, but first and foremost I feel it is the state's responsibility. I think we should always be looking for ways to limit the federal government, not expand it.

Lent?? 30ashopper, i will label you as naive if you think $1 of anything that has been disbursed to date will EVER be repaid. it is gone. do not delude yourself. we paid for salaries, vacations, parachutes, etc. i do not agree with that. if we're going to 'throw our money away', i'd rather throw it back into domestic programs that have been cut by your boy george.

Well this is one area you and I disagree on. The banks signed contracts, if they survive they will pay it back, with interest. If I'm wrong and they all fail, god help us all.

 

[30ashopper]

Is this the same nonexistent budget surplus the Republicans were trying to take credit for and wanting to use for tax cuts?

Can't comment on that, plain and simple. I don't care what politicians 'claimed', it didn't exist.

 

[traderx]

I had to come back to this after re-reading these posts. Are you two talking about the same thing here? Isn't the budget something that ends each fiscal year and the national debt just runs on and on? In other words, if you have a budget and spend less than that budget amount you get a surplus, and if your budgets have a trend of less spending this is where one can project an accumulated surplus for years to come assuming revenues stay pretty much stable. This money can then be spent to reduce the national debt, give tax cuts, start a war, give no bid contracts to your VP's former companies, send billions to a foreign country and lose it because of nonexistent accounting, and maybe then have enough left over to blow on some really dumb sh_t.
I'm no economist so if I'm wrong please, anyone, feel free to set me straight on this one.

Go to the Treasury website link I posted earlier. Create a report from 1/19/1993 to 1/19/2001; that period covers Clinton's eight years. You will see that the national debt is greater when he left office than on the date he was sworn in. The report depicts the debt every single day of each of the eight years. Scroll through each year and you will see that the debt grew larger each year. There is only one way that this could have happened: budget deficits each and every year.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Meanwhile, the Dutch are improving their engineering from the current standards of the 10,000 year flood (which I believe far exceeds NOLA standards) to a standard that will withstand a 100,000 year flood, in part due to expected sea level rises.

But they are socialists and pacifists, what do they know?

And did you know, they also passed a law in the 90's saying that they would not allow the sea to claim any more land, effectively maintaining the width of their country and beaches at a certain size. They followed that up with a substantial investment in shore protection projects via beach nourishment, levee building and on a much smaller extent armoring. To date, they have expended the necessary funding to meet that goal and continue to do so.