Activism Discussion: Rotten Fruit Of The 'Reagan Revolution'

Rotten Fruit Of The 'Reagan Revolution'
Posts: 18

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

S*@yahoo.com
2005-09-08 13:45:41 EST
Los Angeles Times
September 6, 2005
Rotten Fruit of the 'Reagan Revolution'
by Robert Scheer

WHAT THE WORLD has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and
social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.


Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises to
bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have
seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers
to shame. The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush
administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's
destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the
streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.

Yet the problem is much deeper. For half a century, free-market purists
have to great effect denigrated the essential role that modern
government performs as some terrible liberal plot. Thus, the symbolism
of New Orleans' flooding is tragically apt: Franklin Roosevelt's New
Deal and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long's ambitious populist reforms in the
1930s eased Louisiana out of feudalism and toward modernity; the Reagan
Revolution and the callousness of both Bush administrations have sent
them back toward the abyss.

Now we have a president who wastes tax revenues in Iraq instead of
protecting us at home. Levee improvements were deferred in recent years
even after congressional approval, reportedly prompting EPA staffers to
dub flooded New Orleans "Lake George."

None of this is an oversight, or simple incompetence. It is the result
of a campaign by most Republicans and too many Democrats to
systematically vilify the role of government in American life.
Manipulative politicians have convinced lower- and middle-class whites
that their own economic pains were caused by "quasi-socialist"
government policies that aid only poor brown and black people - even
as corporate profits and CEO salaries soared.

For decades we have seen social services that benefit everyone -
education, community policing, public health, environmental protections
and infrastructure repair, emergency services - in steady, steep
decline in the face of tax cuts and rising military spending. But it is
a false savings; it will certainly cost exponentially more to save New
Orleans than it would have to protect it in the first place.

And, although the wealthy can soften the blow of this national decline
by sending their kids to private school, building walls around their
communities and checking into distant hotels in the face of approaching
calamities, others, like the 150,000 people living below the poverty
line in the Katrina damage area - one-third of whom are elderly -
are left exposed.

Watching on television the stark vulnerability of a permanent
underclass of African Americans living in New Orleans ghettos is
terrifying. It should be remembered, however, that even when hurricanes
are not threatening their lives and sanity, they live in rotting
housing complexes, attend embarrassingly ill-equipped public schools
and, lacking adequate police protection, are frequently terrorized by
unemployed, uneducated young men.

In fact, rather than an anomaly, the public suffering of these
desperate Americans is a symbol for a nation that is becoming
progressively poorer under the leadership of the party of Big Business.
As Katrina was making its devastating landfall, the U.S. Census Bureau
released new figures that show that since 1999, the income of the
poorest fifth of Americans has dropped 8.7% in inflation-adjusted
dollars. Last year alone, 1.1 million were added to the 36 million
already on the poverty rolls.

For those who have trouble with statistics, here's the shorthand: The
rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting, in the
ripe populist language of Louisiana's legendary Long, the shaft.

These are people who have long since been abandoned to their fate.
Despite the deep religiosity of the Gulf States and the United States
in general, it is the gods of greed that seem to rule. Case in point:
The crucial New Orleans marshland that absorbs excess water during
storms has been greatly denuded by rampant commercial development
allowed by a deregulation-crazy culture that favors a quick buck over
long-term community benefits.

Given all this, it is no surprise that leaders, from the White House on
down, haven't done right by the people of New Orleans and the rest of
the region, before and after what insurance companies insultingly call
an "act of God."

Fact is, most of them, and especially our president, just don't care
about the people who can't afford to attend political fundraisers or
pay for high-priced lobbyists. No, these folks are supposed to be
cruising on the rising tide of a booming, unregulated economy that
"floats all boats."

They were left floating all right.


Wayne Lundberg
2005-09-08 14:36:14 EST

<*n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126201541.831571.5040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Los Angeles Times
> September 6, 2005
> Rotten Fruit of the 'Reagan Revolution'
> by Robert Scheer
>
> WHAT THE WORLD has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and
> social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.
>
>
> Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises to
> bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have
> seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers
> to shame. The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush
> administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's
> destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the
> streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.
===snip====

It only shows what a welfare state, read 'liberal oriented' has done for
their 'beneficiaries'.... When people are so dependent on government, they
loose their ability to fend for themselves.

Wayne



Miguel O'Pastel
2005-09-08 15:22:08 EST

"Wayne Lundberg" <Waynelund@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:yw%Te.22617$qY1.3827@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
:
: <sanant0n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:1126201541.831571.5040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: > Los Angeles Times
: > September 6, 2005
: > Rotten Fruit of the 'Reagan Revolution'
: > by Robert Scheer
: >
: > WHAT THE WORLD has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and
: > social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.
: >
: >
: > Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises to
: > bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have
: > seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers
: > to shame. The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush
: > administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's
: > destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the
: > streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.
: ===snip====
:
: It only shows what a welfare state, read 'liberal oriented' has done for
: their 'beneficiaries'.... When people are so dependent on government, they
: loose their ability to fend for themselves.
:
: Wayne
:
:
Moron.
M



Jerry Okamura
2005-09-08 15:31:27 EST
Another "story" that is filled with half truths.

<*n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126201541.831571.5040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Los Angeles Times
> September 6, 2005
> Rotten Fruit of the 'Reagan Revolution'
> by Robert Scheer
>
> WHAT THE WORLD has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and
> social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.
>
>
> Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises to
> bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have
> seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers
> to shame. The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush
> administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's
> destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the
> streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.

In the first place, anytime you build a city that you have to "protect" by
building facilities to prevent the water from coming into your city, is
asking for trouble. That city was built long before this President took
office. While, I would agree that the federal response could have been
better, to place all the blame on this administration is basically feeding
us a lie. There would not have been a problem of the magnitude we have
seen, if the Governor and Mayor had evacuated the city. There would not
have been a problem of the magnitude we have seen, if the rising waters had
not been breached. The problem would have been less severe if the pumps had
been able to do the job they were designed to do, which does bring up an
interesting question, i.e. why weren't the punps able to do the job they
were designed to do? I do not know the full story, but it seems to me it
does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the structure you
build to hold back the water is breached, then the entire area is going to
be under water....along with the pumps you have to counteract that flow of
water. Then of course we come to the question of evacuation. If there were
no people in the flood prone areas left, there would have been no need for a
massive response to help these people. But of course we have since leanred
you cannot "force" people to leave their homes, so any "mandatory" order is
meaningless, because it is not "madatory" at all. So, the question that
comes to my mind, is why can't we "force" people to obey a supposed
"mandatory" order. Who shares the blame for that?
>
> Yet the problem is much deeper. For half a century, free-market purists
> have to great effect denigrated the essential role that modern
> government performs as some terrible liberal plot. Thus, the symbolism
> of New Orleans' flooding is tragically apt: Franklin Roosevelt's New
> Deal and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long's ambitious populist reforms in the
> 1930s eased Louisiana out of feudalism and toward modernity; the Reagan
> Revolution and the callousness of both Bush administrations have sent
> them back toward the abyss.

Nice words, but as the now famous ad says, "where is the beef"?
>
> Now we have a president who wastes tax revenues in Iraq instead of
> protecting us at home. Levee improvements were deferred in recent years
> even after congressional approval, reportedly prompting EPA staffers to
> dub flooded New Orleans "Lake George."

Now that is a downright stupid statement. Whether you agree with his
decision or not, to say that the President (any President) goes to war on a
whim is also resorting to lies. Besides, the Congress (both in the Clinton
Administration and the Bush Administration) gave the President's the added
authority to go to war. The UN gave the United States the choice to go to
war. You do not give someone the "choice" to make that decision, if you did
not believe that you should not have the need to go to war. As for the
levee improvements, that should have been done a long time ago, and the
editorial writers of the Los Angeles Times should know better, than to place
all the blame on this President. Besides, does anyone believe that if the
funds had been allocated, that the money would have been spent in time to
prevent the levees from being breached, or that the levees would not have
been breached, even if the money had been spent?

>
> None of this is an oversight, or simple incompetence. It is the result
> of a campaign by most Republicans and too many Democrats to
> systematically vilify the role of government in American life.
> Manipulative politicians have convinced lower- and middle-class whites
> that their own economic pains were caused by "quasi-socialist"
> government policies that aid only poor brown and black people - even
> as corporate profits and CEO salaries soared.
>
> For decades we have seen social services that benefit everyone -
> education, community policing, public health, environmental protections
> and infrastructure repair, emergency services - in steady, steep
> decline in the face of tax cuts and rising military spending. But it is
> a false savings; it will certainly cost exponentially more to save New
> Orleans than it would have to protect it in the first place.

Why "protect" New Orleans.
>
> And, although the wealthy can soften the blow of this national decline
> by sending their kids to private school, building walls around their
> communities and checking into distant hotels in the face of approaching
> calamities, others, like the 150,000 people living below the poverty
> line in the Katrina damage area - one-third of whom are elderly -
> are left exposed.

They are left exposed, because the type of government the Los Angeles Times
supports failed in their basic duty. As for people livign below the
poververy level, perhaps the Los Angeles Times should be spending more of
their time understanding why the poor are poor and finding a way to prevent
that from happening. They can start by figuring out how to get the "poor"
to complete high school, which is provided at no cost to the poor. That one
step would reduce the number of "poor" in this country mroe than anything
else....unless of course you move the bar upward.
>
> Watching on television the stark vulnerability of a permanent
> underclass of African Americans living in New Orleans ghettos is
> terrifying. It should be remembered, however, that even when hurricanes
> are not threatening their lives and sanity, they live in rotting
> housing complexes, attend embarrassingly ill-equipped public schools
> and, lacking adequate police protection, are frequently terrorized by
> unemployed, uneducated young men.
>
> In fact, rather than an anomaly, the public suffering of these
> desperate Americans is a symbol for a nation that is becoming
> progressively poorer under the leadership of the party of Big Business.
> As Katrina was making its devastating landfall, the U.S. Census Bureau
> released new figures that show that since 1999, the income of the
> poorest fifth of Americans has dropped 8.7% in inflation-adjusted
> dollars. Last year alone, 1.1 million were added to the 36 million
> already on the poverty rolls.

If you do not want to be poor, get as much of an education as you can, and
that in itself will do more to improve your chances of not being poor that
anything else....it is all a matter of "choice". You either do something
that greatly improves your chances of not being poor, or you can simply do
nothing to improve your status in life.
>
> For those who have trouble with statistics, here's the shorthand: The
> rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting, in the
> ripe populist language of Louisiana's legendary Long, the shaft.
>
> These are people who have long since been abandoned to their fate.
> Despite the deep religiosity of the Gulf States and the United States
> in general, it is the gods of greed that seem to rule. Case in point:
> The crucial New Orleans marshland that absorbs excess water during
> storms has been greatly denuded by rampant commercial development
> allowed by a deregulation-crazy culture that favors a quick buck over
> long-term community benefits.

It is also greed when you want something you did not earn. And there are a
whole lot more of those people, than there are those who run busineeses.
>
> Given all this, it is no surprise that leaders, from the White House on
> down, haven't done right by the people of New Orleans and the rest of
> the region, before and after what insurance companies insultingly call
> an "act of God."

If a hurricane is not a Act of God, what is it? Would the words an act of
nature...would that make the editorial writers of the Los Angeles Times
happier? Besides, why would the insurnace companies use the words Act of
God. Could it just be it is because the laws of the land makes the
distinction between an Act of God and some other act? If so, then why would
you expect them to take advantage of that law?
>
> Fact is, most of them, and especially our president, just don't care
> about the people who can't afford to attend political fundraisers or
> pay for high-priced lobbyists. No, these folks are supposed to be
> cruising on the rising tide of a booming, unregulated economy that
> "floats all boats."
>
> They were left floating all right.
>

Total bull. They just don't agree with the policies, and think that making
personal attacks on a person is the way to sell their point.



Wayne Lundberg
2005-09-08 15:57:23 EST

"Miguel O'Pastel" <world@turning.point> wrote in message
news:Ab0Ue.12733$p%3.51935@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> "Wayne Lundberg" <Waynelund@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:yw%Te.22617$qY1.3827@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> :
> : <sanant0n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> : news:1126201541.831571.5040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> : > Los Angeles Times
> : > September 6, 2005
> : > Rotten Fruit of the 'Reagan Revolution'
> : > by Robert Scheer
> : >
> : > WHAT THE WORLD has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and
> : > social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United
States.
> : >
> : >
> : > Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises
to
> : > bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have
> : > seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers
> : > to shame. The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush
> : > administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's
> : > destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the
> : > streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.
> : ===snip====
> :
> : It only shows what a welfare state, read 'liberal oriented' has done for
> : their 'beneficiaries'.... When people are so dependent on government,
they
> : loose their ability to fend for themselves.
> :
> : Wayne
> :
> :
> Moron.
> M
>
Do you have the intelligence to argue? Do you know what an argument is? Have
you any idea of what you look like when all you can do is insult the person
who has the courtesy to reply to your post? Did I insult you or your post?
No... I replied with an argument.

Wayne



Jean Smith
2005-09-08 23:46:34 EST
In article <yw%Te.22617$qY1.3827@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Wayne Lundberg" <Waynelund@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> <sanant0n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1126201541.831571.5040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Los Angeles Times
> > September 6, 2005
> > Rotten Fruit of the 'Reagan Revolution'
> > by Robert Scheer
> >
> > WHAT THE WORLD has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and
> > social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.
> >
> >
> > Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises to
> > bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have
> > seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers
> > to shame. The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush
> > administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's
> > destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the
> > streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.
> ===snip====
>
> It only shows what a welfare state, read 'liberal oriented' has done for
> their 'beneficiaries'.... When people are so dependent on government, they
> loose their ability to fend for themselves.
>
> Wayne

There's a thought, Dan'l. (a) If the folk left in New Orleans had
taken the rifle down from above the door, grabbed a sack of flour,
beans and dried meat and set out on the trails north (I-55, I-59),
when New Orleans became the likely target for the hurricane, where
would the multitudes have been when it caught them? How would they
have improved their lot? (b) Where would the gurneys and wheelchairs
been in the front middle or back in your scenario? (c) Which route
would have provided better hunting when supplies dwindled?

--
Gulf Currents: http://www.esl.lsu.edu/home/
Wetlands: http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/LAwetlands/lawetlands.html
Silver foot: http://tinyurl.com/dqflr
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/05/katrina.wetlands.ap/

Wm James
2005-09-10 07:50:02 EST
On 8 Sep 2005 10:45:41 -0700, sanant0n@yahoo.com wrote:

>Yet the problem is much deeper. For half a century, free-market purists
>have to great effect denigrated the essential role that modern
>government performs as some terrible liberal plot. Thus, the symbolism
>of New Orleans' flooding is tragically apt: Franklin Roosevelt's New
>Deal and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long's ambitious populist reforms in the
>1930s eased Louisiana out of feudalism and toward modernity; the Reagan
>Revolution and the callousness of both Bush administrations have sent
>them back toward the abyss.

What a crock! What we have seen is the typical predictable result of
socialism. It's directly tracable to FDR's social programming
componted further by LBJ's "war on poverty" which just created a
massive welfare class dependent on handouts and expecting others to
provide every need for them while they spend their time watching TV,
doing drugs, and stealing instead of working for a living. Huey Long
was a criminal, nothng more. He mooched tax dollars and ran the
largest extortion racket in the south. And since the 60s, the taxpayer
funded handouts sent to Louisiana to repair, maintain, and inprove the
levees have instead been pilfered by crooked politicians and used to
purchase votes from fast breeding bums. The result is what we saw
last week in New Orleans.

William R. James


Wm James
2005-09-10 07:54:03 EST
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:31:27 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<*5@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>In the first place, anytime you build a city that you have to "protect" by
>building facilities to prevent the water from coming into your city, is
>asking for trouble.

But Bush is a god with powers beyond time. Haven't ou noticed that
since he took office he's responsible for everything that ever
happened and everything the ever might happen. Just read the news.

William R. James


George Z. Bush
2005-09-10 08:17:28 EST

"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
news:jnh5i1lhhqm5g3sktpfrq3j5lt4g21e888@4ax.com...
> On 8 Sep 2005 10:45:41 -0700, sanant0n@yahoo.com wrote:

> What a crock! What we have seen is the typical predictable result of
> socialism.

Speaking of crocks, yours is a pretty good one. To buy into it, I'd have to
believe that every single Republican President and Republican-controlled
Congress since FDR was too stupid and/or too weak to dismantle the "socialist"
system he foisted off on us.

You wanna believe that, feel free, but I think I'll pass.

George Z.



Sid9
2005-09-10 10:40:14 EST
Wm James wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:31:27 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> In the first place, anytime you build a city that you have to
>> "protect" by building facilities to prevent the water from coming
>> into your city, is asking for trouble.
>
> But Bush is a god with powers beyond time. Haven't ou noticed that
> since he took office he's responsible for everything that ever
> happened and everything the ever might happen. Just read the news.
>
> William R. James

Wrong.

Bush,Jr is responsible for nothing.

How could he be responsible for the delayed federal help?
He wasn't there.
He wasn't involved.
He let key decisions stay in the hands of his underlings.
They argued legalities while people died and went without water in horrible
conditions.

Bush,jr doesn't watch TV News...he says so.
He got his news from Chertoff...he doesn't watch TV news either.
Chertoff got his news from "Brownie, you're doing a great job!"

So federal resources languished while Bush,jr's underlings
argued about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Bush,Jr was busy.
Bush,jr was busy vacationing and fund raising.
Let them eat cake says another unfeeling Bush


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron