George W. Bush hates White People! - Writers Forum

Mklangelo · 06-21-2008, 01:48 PM

Just look at all the flooding in Iowa and Wisconsin! He did nothing to prevent all that rain, just as he did nothing to prevent Katrina! Iowa and Wisconsin are full of white people.

On the serious side, do you think the people in Iowa will still be whining in three years like those in New Orleans?

I'd be doubting it.

bob rulz · 06-23-2008, 01:53 AM

Totally different situations.

However, I do think the accusations that George Bush "hates black people" because the Katrina recovery was a "disaster" is totally unfounded, neo-liberal, NAACP bullshit.

Zyphial · 06-23-2008, 02:34 AM

I suppose I'll add my opinion before this becomes a heated flame war with both sides crying "racists!" First, it's not cool to joke about people who went through a disaster and wanted to be compensated. I'd like to say no one, but in truth very few blame Bush for the actual hurricane (poor oil/alternative fuel policies-->global warming-->more severe hurricanes, but this is a massive stretch, to say the least...) but at the same time the government's response was deplorable, for whatever reason. I think race had something to do with it, but it wasn't the primary reason things went so badly. Poverty is. Black people just tend to be impoverished, for whatever reason (I don't want to go over socioeconomics, if I'm using that term correctly). I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that "bush hates poor people," because the GOP has for it's primary voters the rich (who happen to be mostly white [for whatever reason], but there are plenty of rich Republican blacks too).

I'm a bit behind in my news, so I haven't heard much about the Hurricane response. The response will determine the sentiments of the victims years down the line, not the event itself. In general, people are still very angry about the Katrina mess, so it's likely that there will be more outrage in Iowa unless things are handled perfectly.

ash somers · 06-23-2008, 02:42 AM

george w bush is a major twat

JoannaMac · 06-23-2008, 05:12 AM

Of course George Bush didn't cause the hurricane, but the federal flood protection system failed dismally and nearly every levee was breached. People in New Orleans had been saying for years that should a major hurricane hit them the systems in place were severely run down and inadequate. They had been lobbying for years to get funding to protect the city and were denied. That's why so many people hold the Bush administration responsible for the disaster. That and his abysmal response when the inevitable did finally happen.

And I fucking hate the snide little comment about people in New Orleans still whining three years later. At US$81.2 billion, Katrina was the most expensive disaster in U.S history. It also affected some of the poorest people in the country, who incidentally are still not receiving the help they need.

JosephB · 06-23-2008, 05:35 AM

There was plenty of blame to go around, not the least of which should go to Ray Nagin, mayor and governor and Kathleen Blanco (can you imagine the response if Bush had given a shoot to kill order for looters in the aftermath of the hurricane?) both who displayed an appalling level of incompetence. Yet they got a free pass-- because Bush was a convenient scapegoat.

Bush's biggest mistake was to not fly to New Orleans early enough to cry crocodile tears like Clinton did when Hurricane Andrew hit, and then promptly left and did nothing. Bush is a fuck up for sure, but I gauran-fuckin'-tee that if Clinton was in office at the time of Katrina, no one would have placed this level of blame on him.

I don't like Bush. But the most vocal and rabid Bush haters lose credibility when they try to pin shit tags on him like "racist" for no reason, or exaggerate his role in the poor response to Katrina.

For heaven's sake, there are enough real reasons criticize him. You don't need to make them up.

Quote:

People in New Orleans had been saying for years that should a major hurricane hit them the systems in place were severely run down and inadequate. They had been lobbying for years to get funding to protect the city and were denied.

And last time I checked, the administration isn't responsible for managing and allocating funds for infrastructure maintenance, including levees in New Orleans. The key here is "lobbying for years." This is the Bush administrations fault?

alanmt · 06-23-2008, 06:58 AM

I read that the City of Gretna and its officials (who closed the bridge and turned back fleeing refuges at gunpoint) dodged criminal charges; too bad. Too bad I wasn't the federal prosecutor there.

The various civil suits against Gretna are working their way through the system, having survived motions to dismiss by the City; the judges having ruled that the suits presented colorable claims for violation of constitutional rights.

JosephB · 06-23-2008, 07:33 AM

I heard Bush flew down there on a secret mission and closed that bridge himself. Not true?

aspiretowrite · 06-23-2008, 07:41 AM

I don't think hate comes into it - it's just a matter of priorites. Who does he really support - a country who pays him $450K a year to run the Government, or wealthy corporations and individuals who put millions in his pocket so they can get what they want e.g. lucrative oil contracts in occupied nations, huge tax breaks for the rich, protection from class action lawsuits etc. Of course if the working class of America had a whip around and were able to outbid these coporate, wealthy contributors, I am sure Bush would very quickly become their best friend.

JosephB · 06-23-2008, 08:22 AM

WARING! OFF TOPIC

Quote:

huge tax breaks for the rich

aspiretowrite, I'm sorry you don't make enough to get any tax breaks. I do, and I am hardly rich. We just get by, because I'm a small business man who is fucked daily by high taxes.

More than half of all taxes paid come the top 10% of wage earners; people like me. I am not smoking Cubans and drinking Cristal. Nine out of ten new jobs created in America are generated by small businesses like mine. These are companies with fewer than 100 employees and are run by the people who started them. When they are given a chance, most small businessmen re-invest in their own company. That means they create more jobs, more payroll, and and pay more taxes. This is not "trickle down." It's common sense that any idiot should be able to comprehend.

What about real rich folks?

The Internal Revenue Service say the top 1% of all income earners in this country pay over 33% of the taxes. These folks aren't millionaires, either. They earn more than $295,000 a year, which is a lot of money, but they won't be appearing on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. These people earned their money. And the invest it and create jobs. Do you think they hide their money under a mattress?

Higher taxes kill incentive. Why earn more if you are just going to get screwed out of your money? I am so sick of people who don't actually contribute to the economy whining about the evil rich.

EDIT: Sorry man, I didn't notice you were form across the pond. Just makes what you have to say more irrelevant. Not that some of your countrymen don't know more than some Americans about what goes on here. I just don't think you are one of them.

aspiretowrite · 06-23-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephB

WARING! OFF TOPIC

aspiretowrite, I'm sorry you don't make enough to get any tax breaks. I do, and I am hardly rich. We just get by, because I'm a small business man who is fucked daily by high taxes.

More than half of all taxes paid come the top 10% of wage earners; people like me. I am not smoking Cubans and drinking Cristal. Nine out of ten new jobs created in America are generated by small businesses like mine. These are companies with fewer than 100 employees and are run by the people who started them. When they are given a chance, most small businessmen re-invest in their own company. That means they create more jobs, more payroll, and and pay more taxes. This is not "trickle down." It's common sense that any idiot should be able to comprehend.

What about real rich folks?

The Internal Revenue Service say the top 1% of all income earners in this country pay over 33% of the taxes. These folks aren't millionaires, either. They earn more than $295,000 a year, which is a lot of money, but they won't be appearing on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. These people earned their money. And the invest it and create jobs. Do you think they hide their money under a mattress?

Higher taxes kill incentive. Why earn more if you are just going to get screwed out of your money? I am so sick of people who don't actually contribute to the economy whining about the evil rich.

JosephB: First of all way off topic. If you want to have a discussion about Economics start a new thread. Second: I contribute to the economy, work damn hard for my pay and thanks to all the taxes deducted, have fuck all to show for it. So If I want to have a little pop at the uber rich (note the re-phrasing) I am bloody well entitled.

JosephB · 06-23-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

I contribute to the economy, work damn hard for my pay and thanks to all the taxes deducted, have fuck all to show for it. So If I want to have a little pop at the uber rich (note the re-phrasing) I am bloody well entitled.

Well, good for you, mate. I'm sure you contribute something to your economy, but not ours. Note my edit. I happen to like the uber-rich. I don't know about your country, but most here earned very damned penny. And somebody has gotta build the yachts. They are also huge givers to philanthropic causes. Cry about the inefficiencies of government and wasteful spending, not about how we can further redistribute wealth.

JoannaMac · 06-23-2008, 09:46 AM

Joe, I understand where you're coming from, but if higher taxes kill incentive, why doesn't the European economy which pays much more tax than America, fall to pieces? In most of the comparisons done between European and American standards of living, Europeans win. Europeans are also quite happy to pay more taxes.

I might add that the small business sector has a bad reputation for worker exploitation.

Many people consider the statement “Small business create jobs” to be a myth. While you may be a good small business man who does the right thing by his workers, unfortunately you are not in the majority. The reality is that a large portion of small companies are short-lived sweatshops who exist at the mercy of big corporations.

While lots of jobs in small business appear each year -- usually at the demand of large corporations, an equal number are usually destroyed as those same large corporations switch between sub-contractors in an ever-changing musical chairs game of captive suppliers.

The effect of the myth of small business job creation is that "pro-business" politicians then call for lighter regulation of "entrepreneurial firms," meaning that those under- regulated firms become a safe haven for exploitation.

This is convenient for big companies which can unload their dirtiest jobs on their small contractors, knowing they can get away with often illegal exploitation that the bigger firms could not pull off.

alanmt · 06-23-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoannaMac

I might add that the small business sector has a bad reputation for worker exploitation.

Many people consider the statement “Small business create jobs” to be a myth. While you may be a good small business man who does the right thing by his workers, unfortunately you are not in the majority. The reality is that a large portion of small companies are short-lived sweatshops who exist at the mercy of big corporations.

I must respectfully disagree, Joanna. This doesn't accord with either my experience in the United States generally or my regional economy.

I also am a small businessman, owner of a small firm. My employees get a better benefit package than most employees of large companies, but I know this is not always the case, usually due to the lower profit margins that small business men have, many struggle just to get by.

In my experience, around here, the smaller the firm, the closer the bond between employer and employee, however.

While I would not go so far as to say there are no sweatshops in the United States, I am quite certain that such account for such a minimal portion of hte labor force as to be statistically insignificant.

aspiretowrite · 06-23-2008, 10:10 AM

[quote=JoannaMac;1148011]Joe, I understand where you're coming from, but if higher taxes kill incentive, why doesn't the European economy which pays much more tax than America, fall to pieces? In most of the comparisons done between European and American standards of living, Europeans win. Europeans are also quite happy to pay more taxes.

Joanna - The reason our quality of lives are better in Europe, espcially the good ole UK, is that we have a national healthcare system which, although under heavy attack, has never let me or my family down, a guaranteed minimum wage, 20 days paid holiday entitlement, and a state pension (although it is in a bit of trouble at the moment). I know you are not generalising when you say that Europeans are quite happy to pay more taxes - that is not necessarily true. If that were the case Abba would never have left their home country (I think it's Sweden but not being a fan I am not sure) to avoid paying 85% tax on their earnings - ouch! I acutally think that is steep. Also more and more of our wealthy business people, celebrities etc live in tax haven countries to avoid paying the steep taxes over here (40% on income tax, National Insurance - I would imagine Council Tax on a mansion house would be steep). Some do make up for it by acting as Philanthropists to their old hometowns their and others do stay.

Jo - I am a big supporter of small businesses, unfortunately the larger corporations have driven many of them out of business, certainly here in the UK. I would be happy for tax breaks to go to the smaller business man (like yourself) first, and get a bigger share, especially if they use to invest in the company. Let's face it since when did McDonald's need a tax break? What I object to is the larger companies that demand a tax cut, bank the money then lay off a load of workers and announce record profits. And yes the governments who cave in to these companies, and seemed to perform disappearing acts with my money, are just as much to blame. Surely you and I can agree on that.

My original point though is that Bush is loyal to those who pay him the most - it's not about hate. Although of course I don't know this for certain, since I am not inside the man's head but everything I do know about him points to my conclusion. I will of course concede to the possibility that I might be wrong. It is just an opinion not a statement of fact. Actually our own government has been slack in dealing with the aftermath of the floods here in the UK, although I couldn't tell what motivated that other than our PM is a bit of dick head.