Ignoring Bush comment, Hume asserted president declined to compare CA wildfire response to Katrina
SUMMARY: Fox News' Brit Hume asserted that President Bush "declined to compare" the
government's response to wildfires in Southern
California and to Hurricane Katrina, and correspondent Bret Baier
aired only Bush's statement that "[t]here's all kinds of time for historians to
compare this response or that response." But neither Hume nor Baier noted that
Bush also said, during a news conference earlier in the day, that "[i]t makes a
big difference when you have someone in the statehouse willing to take the
lead."
On the October 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report, while introducing a segment on President Bush's tour of the fire-ravaged areas of Southern California, host Brit Hume asserted that Bush "declined to compare the government's wildfire response to the one for Hurricane Katrina." And during the segment that followed, Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier aired only a statement Bush made when asked by a reporter to compare his administration's response to the fires to its response to Hurricane Katrina in which Bush said, "There's all kinds of time for historians to compare this response or that response." But neither Hume nor Baier noted that Bush also said, during a news conference earlier in the day, that "[i]t makes a big difference when you have someone in the statehouse willing to take the lead." As The Washington Post reported, Bush made the statement while speaking to "a crowd of hundreds of firefighters at a command post at Kit Carson Park in Escondido in northern San Diego County." It was during a "subsequent tour" of Rancho Bernardo in San Diego, as the Post also reported, that Bush declined to compare the government's response to the wildfires to its handling of Katrina.
During the Special Report segment, Hume asserted: "President Bush hit the ground in Southern California today to view the devastation. He declined to compare the government's wildfire response to the one for Hurricane Katrina. Chief White House correspondent Bret Baier reports Mr. Bush instead tried to give the kind of attention and comfort that only the president can bring." During the segment, Baier stated: "President Bush walked through the ashes and rubble of Jay and Kendra Jeffcoat's home in Rancho Bernardo. The fires claimed almost everything, leaving only a charred spiral staircase to nowhere and a piece of wall showing their address." Baier then played a portion of Bush's response to a reporter's question about "thoughts" Bush may have "about the contrast between this response and the Katrina response," highlighting specifically Bush's statement that "[t]here's all kinds of time for historians to compare this response or that response. But those of us who are here from government, our hearts are right here with the Jeffcoats. That's where we are."
From a White House news release, which included Bush's full response to the reporter's question:
QUESTION: Mr. President, a lot has been made about the contrast between this response and the Katrina response. Do you have any thoughts on that, and how you're doing?
BUSH: You better ask the governor [of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger] how we're doing. I will tell you this: On all these responses, the thing that has amazed me most is the courage of our first responders. The firefighters here in this part of the world are incredibly brave people. The police force has done a fabulous job. And same in the Katrina area. I mean, I know there was a lot of criticism of effort, but remember, there was 33,000 people pulled off roofs by brave Coast Guard men and women flying those choppers. A lot of people's lives were saved.
REP. BRIAN BILBRAY (R-CA): San Diego County has a centralized disaster response team made up of the County chairman as the chairman of the Disaster Council, and every police chief and fire chief and mayor, so there's a network here that those of us in the federal and the state level are able to come supplement. But the backbone of this response was the local providers, because they were organized. So the real heroes here are the providers, are the men and women working for the counties and the cities and the fire districts that really were here first and foremost, and we're just supplementing.
BUSH: Yes, see, that's an interesting question. I appreciate you asking it. My hearts are with the Jeffcoats right now, that's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about people whose lives turned upside-down. The experts can try to figure out whether the response was perfect or not. All I can tell you is when the governor calls, I answer his phone. When the governor says we need this help, think about sending these troops here, I got on the phone, I called the appropriate people. I'm interested in helping him solve problems and helping the folks here at the county level. There's all kinds of time for historians to compare this response or that response, but those of us who are here from government, our hearts are right here with the Jeffcoats, that's where we are.
And I'm looking forward, and I know the senator and governor and congressman is, to eating lunch with the firefighters. We can't thank people enough for putting their lives at risk to help a neighbor, and that's exactly what's taking place. If there needs to be more firefighters, we'll send more firefighters. Those are the kind of questions that we're asking: What does it take to get the job done?
While neither Hume nor Baier mentioned Bush's comment that "[i]t makes a big difference when you have someone in the statehouse willing to take the lead" -- made earlier the same day -- it was reported by other media outlets. In The New York Times, reporter Jennifer Steinhauer wrote that Bush's remark was "an apparent dig at the Louisiana governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a Democrat," for her handling of Hurricane Katrina two years earlier and noted that "[t]he president pointedly praised Mr. Schwarzenegger's handling of the country's biggest disaster since Hurricane Katrina two years ago, making veiled comparisons to local relief efforts at that time in Louisiana."
From the October 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: President Bush hit the ground in Southern California today to view the devastation. He declined to compare the government's wildfire response to the one for Hurricane Katrina. Chief White House correspondent Bret Baier reports Mr. Bush instead tried to give the kind of attention and comfort that only the president can bring.
[begin video clip]
BAIER: President Bush walked through the ashes and rubble of Jay and Kendra Jeffcoat's home in Rancho Bernardo. The fires claimed almost everything, leaving only a charred spiral staircase to nowhere and a piece of wall showing their address. The president toured the neighborhood with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray.
BUSH: God bless you all.
BAIER: While comforting Kendra Jeffcoat, the president was asked by a reporter to compare his administration's response to the fires to the response to Hurricane Katrina.
BUSH: There's all kinds of time for historians to compare this response or that response. But those of us who are here from government, our hearts are right here with the Jeffcoats. That's where we are.
BAIER: The president said Governor Schwarzenegger would have to evaluate the response, praising the governor for his leadership. Schwarzenegger wanted to make clear to reporters that it was President Bush who called him early on, as the fires had just started spreading.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Anything he could do, anything that we need, we should let him know. That all his entire Cabinet and his whole staff, his team, everyone is available. So I call this quick action, I mean, quicker than I expected. I can tell you that.
BAIER: The president's trip to the area started with a helicopter tour through smoky haze, viewing scorched acres, but also evidence that the fires had been contained in this particular area. A briefing by fire officials showed that firefighters had taken advantage of the winds dying down to beat back four separate fires around San Diego.
BUSH: We thank you for helping save lives and save property.
BAIER: The president then met with some of the men and women who've been battling the blazes, thanking them for their hard work, and promising, as the flames died down, the support won't.
BUSH: We're not going to forget you in Washington, D.C. That we want the people to know that there's a better day ahead, that today your life may look dismal, but tomorrow, life's going to be better. And to the extent that the federal government can help you, we want to do so.
BAIER: While Senator Feinstein has praised the president's response to the fires, the other California senator, Barbara Boxer, has backed off a Tuesday comment that half of the state's National Guard equipment is not available because of Iraq. And now, she's happy with the federal response.
BOXER: I see the state, the federal, the local working very seamlessly in a way where people put their egos aside to work together. Whether all of the assets we should have had were at our disposal, I don't know at this point.
[end video clip]
BAIER: Officials at the Interior Department say almost 2,000 federal firefighting personnel and some 57 aircraft are helping out in California. The president's homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, insisted to reporters, quote, "This is not the end of federal assistance. It's just the beginning." Brit.
From the October 26 New York Times article:
Mr. Bush, joined by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, also a Republican, visited the charred remains of neighborhoods, met distraught residents and exhausted fire crews and viewed fires that continue to burn throughout the region. By Thursday, the fires had destroyed 1,800 homes, injured 57 people and burned a half-million acres, a little more than twice the size of New York City.
The president pointedly praised Mr. Schwarzenegger's handling of the country's biggest disaster since Hurricane Katrina two years ago, making veiled comparisons to local relief efforts at that time in Louisiana.
"It makes a big difference when you have someone in the statehouse willing to take the lead," Mr. Bush said at a news conference, in an apparent dig at the Louisiana governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a Democrat. He also assured California residents, "We're not going to forget you in Washington, D.C."
From the October 26 Washington Post article:
Bush's helicopter, Marine One, flew over a denuded canyon, hovering there for a time in the smoky haze. It then flew over Interstate 15 before landing on a high school football field.
"It makes a significant difference when you have somebody in the statehouse willing to take the lead," Bush told a crowd of hundreds of firefighters at a command post at Kit Carson Park in Escondido in northern San Diego County.
During a subsequent tour of a San Diego neighborhood, Bush said he would leave it to historians to compare the government's performance in responding to the California fires with that of its response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. "There's all kinds of time for historians to compare this response or that response," he said, his arm draped over the shoulder of Kendra Jeffcoat, who lost her home in the wildfires.
Bush and Schwarzenegger gave each other credit for what they described as the prompt and effective response of state and federal agencies that had kept the number killed by the fires low, though the inferno has devastated 753 square miles and will end up causing more than $1 billion in damage.
how about that fake press conference fema had about the fires last week. their own staff were posing as reporters. shades of pravda.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_apologizes_for_fake_FEMA_1026.html
I've only read a few reports about the phony FEMA press conference, but it seems to me like everyone has forgotten about all of Bush's phony press conferences. The White House even came out and condemned the FEMA press conference, so apparently even they've forgotten about the times they've been caught answering scripted questions from planted audience members. Or how about Bush's staged speech from New Orleans, where Jackson Square was shown lit up for the first time since Katrina hit, only to be left in the dark again as soon the cameras were off.
I was disapointed in Senator Finestein this morning appearing on FOX saying she was pleased with the job Bush has done on the fires. Yuck
See, you misunderstood her praise. She was pleased he didn't do anything other than a few photo ops.
She also praises the Fairness Doctrine because of the one sided view on immigration reform - which takes away freedom of speech on national radio. Left wing dominates the TV news market, while Right wing dominates the radio airwaves. So she wants to pass the Fairness Doctrine to take away the Right wing freedom of speech on the airwaves - but why doesnt she make note that it does not include tv - because the left controls the tv? hmm.
Oh gee, please tell us more of what you heard from Rush about the Fairness Doctrine. It's soooo interesting and informative. If it wasn't for all you rushbots I would have no idea that our freedom of speech was in such danger. Those facist democrats can't control our airwaves![/sarcasm off]
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2133.html
There is a live interview with her. The point is that the left cannot find a marketplace in talk radio - the left wing listeners just are not there. They basically want to control the free market. You can talk down to rush all you want because your viewpoints are different - and i dont even listen to him, however, he brings in on average up to 20 million listeners a week. This is a big problem for the democrats as far as getting an audience on the radio vs. television.
No the point is there is NO free speech issue involved. As the Supreme Court has said directly.
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html
This has been the consistent view of the Court. Congress unquestionably has the power to grant and deny licenses and to eliminate existing stations. FRC v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266 (1933). No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because "the public interest" requires it "is not a denial of free speech." National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 227 (1943).
By the same token, as far as the First Amendment is concerned those who are licensed stand no better than those to whom licenses are refused. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.
This is a silly rightwing talking point devoid of substance that Rush pushes to his entire hivemind audience and percolates through the rightwing noise machine. It is ludicrous. The airwaves BELONG TO US. We have every right of input into HOW they are used. The only REAL fear here are the rightwing screechmonkeys who dont believe they can compete in the arena of ideas. Only in the arena of attracting business advertising they are afraid if both sides are heard no one will buy thier BS. Propaganda is so much more effective when only one side is heard.
If anything your just oozed were true ABC, NBC, and CBS would need share their tv time with conservatives since there is a clear liberal bias on those channels. Liberals are welcome to the radio waves as much as anyone else. The reason they fail is because nobody wants to listen to liberal hate speech on the radio. It is pretty hard to get advertisers when you don't have listeners. Free markets rule baby!
Yeah we have heard the hivemind talking point about the non existant liberal bias in the media. And the stupidity about leftwing hatespeech from the party of the insane Weinerdog and Ann beat liberals with baseball bats and torture Arabs as a telivised sport fame. Your ignorance is tired cliched and stupid. As for IF it were true. I cited the Supreme Court decision have you ever learned to READ? You moronic hiveminders keep pretending this is a free speech issue and it isnt. WE OWN THE AIRWAVES. It is a resource management issue. I wish you guys would be borrow or steal the braincells necessary to understand this oh so simple concept
Since these stations "ooze" liberal bias, please state 5 clear examples of this phenomenon.
It must be a genetic brain disorder, since no matter how many times it is explained, the notion that the airwaves are owned by the public, (that is the U.S. of A. tax paying citizens), and licensed out in order to support the public interest, (again the interest of ALL of the U.S. of A. tax paying citizens), just does not register.
Maybe this will help get by the genertic brain disorder mixing up the signals concerning public interest and free enterprise. Now that we are leasing out our transportation highways to private companies, imagine if the conservative boogey man, Soros, leases a highway and allows registered Democrats to use it at a discount. What? Not fair? Why? In the Rush one mind it's a free market. Yeah baby, it's all about the free market...
but isn't the fairness doctrine all about pushing popular conservatives off the air and replacing them with unpopular progressives? well no, because then you have to explain why progressive talker ed schultz and bill o'reilly both have total audiences of 3.25 million, according to this link to talkers magazine. yet schultz is only on about 60 stations and o'reilly more than 400. obviously schultz pulls in more listeners per station. so why is he not on more of them?
http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34
I dont think Bill Oreilly is the target in this case. Its more Rush Limbaugh (20 million listeners) and Sean Hannity (12.5 million listeners).
and limbaugh is on 600 stations. the point you are determined to avoid is that someone somewhat on the left of the spectrum actually gets decent ratings with a fraction of the stations just automatically handed to right wingers.
Im not saying they dont get decent ratings on the stations they are played on. Im saying they dont have any more stations because the ratings in those areas would not be good, hence why they dont have them. You need to have listeners in a market to get advertising to pay for the stations. Please read my lower post for my explaination.
then why does schultz's site only list three stations in florida? miami, west palm beach, and daytona beach. florida is a swing state. where are the stations in the big cities like orlando, jacksonville, tampa-st pete?
That would be a good question for you to write the democratic party and ask why they are not promoting in those areas. The entire a.m radio frequency is never full in any area, so its not difficult to purchase a specific frequency to broadcase.
now you want to change the subject. you said that progressives do best in the big cities because of economics. i just pointed out several big cities in one state alone where schultz is not on. we're not debating the democrats buying radio stations.
Excuse me - but one cannot just "buy airwaves" in any market - they are controlled and sold FOR the People by the FCC and resold on the open market pending FCC approval. You could no more move to a town and start your own radio staion than you could open a whorehouse . . . unless in the case of both, some good inside connections were made and lots of cash was avaialble . . . Big broadcast companies , like Clear Channel, find it very profitable to "buy" syndacated programs to fill the space between commercials -
Ever wonder why a local country station, talk station. MOR, and rock station all seem to be in the same building/boradcast corporate owner? Share one news team (likely the same 2 people) tech staff and sales staff - so much for "local" hometown chatter. . .
MARLBORO MAN:
If your "logic" here is true, and the Liberal Bias "oozes" out of television ... and it is also true that the MARKET dictates what is seen and heard ... then what is your problem with what you perceive as "Liberal Bias"? Are you just upset that Americans prefer the Liberal message?
Now, as to Limbaugh ... his "market" is closer to 13 million than 20 million (unless you can show evidence to the contrary, TALKER magazine sets his current listenership at 13 million). And I'm very willing to believe that his listeners are "market driven", just as there is a market, MARLBORO MAN, for cigarettes. They are bad for you, will eventually kill you, annoy everyone around you, but there is a certain MARKET of addicts. Limbaugh, just like cigarettes, make the consumer "feel better".
On election night 2004, FOX NEWS boasted an audience of 8 million viewers. However, over 40 million viewers were tuned into the "networks" you describe as "oozing Liberalism". Is this about right, do you think? That Liberals outnumber Conservatives 5 to 1 in America, as demonstrated by the market preference in the media?
The Fairness Doctrine simply says that our PUBLIC AIRWAVES are not "for sale" to the highest bidder, to turn it into one-sided partisan propaganda.
"REALITY has a well-known Liberal bias," as Colbert has observed, and what this means is that rightwingers consider objective, factual news reporting to be BIASED AGAINST THEM.
The Rightwing prefers to have their "news" spoon-fed to them by hyper-partisans who interpret every event with rightwing favor and spin. And, of course, who routinely bash and smear Liberals (the majority).
Wealthy rightwing media moguls (a tiny minority) have cashed in on this "niche market" of people who prefer their news BIASED to the Right, and have purchased a virtual monopoly over AM radio, with great inroads into cable stations, etc. The problem is, they own the STATION, but they do not OWN the airwaves over which they broadcast. The OWNERS (we, the people) have every right to regulate the use of OUR property.
And, considering Liberals outnumber Conservatives 5 to 1, BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, a true Democracy would demand that Liberals should get their way.
Of course, Limbaugh and Hannity would still have all the Freedom of Speech that the vast majority of us have: They can stand on a streetcorner and bloviate to their heart's content.
If they want to use OUR airwaves, though, they will have to accept competition FROM THE MAJORITY.
the stations just automatically handed to right wingers.
Just an FYI - its not true, its a free market. But the same case could be made for the left wingers with television. Right wingers only have Fox, left wingers have abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc, cnn, etc. However, it goes both ways - the television is a free market as well, so you dont see me complaining that we should kick them off the tv.
oh, please. the idea that all the major networks have some liberal bias is baloney. i see right wingers like bill kristol on constantly on the today show, unopposed, with matt lauer pitching softballs.
Please - honestly tell me that MSNBC and CNN are not liberally biased. Chris Matthews, Olberman, etc.
There is no argument you can make on that. Its a fact they are left wing stations.
when do i quit laughing? this site is constantly pointing out chris matthews drooling over those manly republicans and bashing democrats.
Just as Fox has Alan Colmes who does the same to Republicans, does he not?
Wow, you can fine 1. And from our opinion here, he's more of a patsy than anything. He couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag. When I see a real liberal heavyweight going toe to toe with Hannity I"ll be impressed.
but you just offered matthews as an example of liberal bias. make up your mind.
When your definition of "Liberal" is anyone who doesn't love Bush or does not want a theocratic nation, then sure, I can see why you think you can prove liberal bias. Thinking people think otherwise.
First, thats retarded because not once was Bush's name ever mentioned. And FYI - Bush has proven over the years not to be the fiscal conservative that many thought he was going to be. Second, your trying to change the subject to get out of a losing argument.
Actually, you are the one who is trying to change the subject to get out of a losing argument. This thread is quite clear that it's about Bush making comparisons between Katrina and California wildfires, you were the one who started the fairness doctrine deflection. Totally avoiding the real reason for this thread is deflection. I'll be more than happy to float your boat, but don't assume for a second that we here don't have a clue that you tried to change the subject because the real story was a losing argument for you.
Have a nice day...
No it is NOT a fact you are brainwashed. Those same stations that were cheerleaders for the war, refused to call Bush on his lies and ignored the Downing Street memo are liberal? Its ridiculous. Here is a clue. NOT mindlessly pushing rightwing propaganda and conforming to rightwing talking points does not constitute being liberal.
MARLBOROMAN:
Need I remind you MSNBC fired Phil Donahue, WHEN HIS SHOW WAS THE TOP RATED ONE ON THEIR LINEUP, because he was against Bush's War? It wasn't ratings or popularity that got Donahue fired, it was the Rightwing BIAS of the owners, who didn't want the Administration to hear any "discouraging words" from their channel.
And over on CNN, Rightwinger Glenn Beck continues on the air, DESPITE ratings embarrassingly in the toilet. This can only be explained by the owners preferrence for the Rightwing message, irrespective of ratings.
MARKET DRIVEN my ass.
More hivemind nonsense. The media is not leftwing that is a baseless assertion that the right just keep pushing. It is BS. I am a lefty they arent pushing my agenda. Its dumb.
I just realized I didnt answer your question though. As far as why he is not on more stations is due to the market its well known that there is a great difference of where the target listeners are. For example, most democratic voters & listeners are located in the more dense, major city areas (Ohio for example would be Cleveland, Columbus, Cinci, Akron), but the republican voters/listeners are more predominant in the suburbs and further out areas, but they are also played on the major channels in the city as well. Obviously channels are not going to stay on the air unless they are getting listeners and making money, so market tells us that there just is not enough room for more left wing stations to make money due to lack of listeners.
Oh, I totally disagree with that idea. Coming from the midwest I can say from experience you will find a nice cultural mix of conservatives and liberals outside the city. That has always been one of the biggest lies of all time.
Its obviously not if you ever look at the votes by county.
I do. You apparently don't, unless you are using that Rush Limbaugh binary map that just shows red vs blue. Look at the maps that show voter mix, all those "red" counties aren't as solid as you think.
Actually your delusions is that radio money is about listeners, its about ADVERTISING, which is almost exclusively a bussiness expense, and we all know the business community is a pretty conservative lot.
There is no freedom of speech issue involved in the fairness doctrine no matter WHAT Rush told you. The resource is OURS. The deal was the airwaves are supposed to perform a public service function. It is a democratic decision if that is being done or if mandating that both sides be heard would be a better use of OUR resource. There is no question about this. The Supreme Court has already spoken on EXACTLY this issue.
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." -The Decider
This is the key phrase that demonstrates the genuine lack of leadership from our President and the government he claims to lead.
Mama said to never follow a leader who can't explain at least four possible outcomes in any desparate circumstance. The Bush Republicans failed to see the possibilities and failed to take charge before, during and after the absolutely crippling devistation visited upon the entire Gulf Coast region by Katrina.
What could we expect from these guys though? They thoroughly misread the consequences of occupying Iraq, they misjudged the consequences of tax cuts for millionaires and they continue to get it wrong on SCHIP.
While kicking back, taking the Republican route and lending meager government support while California takes on this crisis may be feasible in this situation, it was not the answer for Gulf Coast residents. There are fundamental differences in the scope of the two tragedies and that is why comparisons fall short.
Except that Bush's line about nobody forseeing the breach of the levee's was simply a lie. It wasn't so much a failure to see one possible outcome as it was a failure to act on that prior knowledge. After all, we have video of Bush being told that the flood waters could possibly overtake the levees. So either he wasn't listening or he was, just didn't give a sh*t, and then lied about it later.
Good point, clams.
they misjudged the consequences of tax cuts for millionaires and they continue to get it wrong on SCHIP
Although I personally do not agree with the expansion for SCHIP given the current language of the revision, I think they will come to a bi-partisan agreement. For one, the democrats refusing to meet with the republicans to draw up a revision was pretty stupid, they had to know there was no way it would pass if both sides didnt work together. Also, trying to get it to pass so quickly during the fires was pretty poor judgement of the democratic senate.
But if I may ask, can you elaborate on what you consider failures on the tax cuts for the upper class? By putting more money into peoples hands, they use that to create jobs by investment. The unemployment rates in the united states are the best they have been since (4.5-4.7%) since 2001. Especially since 5% unemployment is considered "full employment". But you may other failures in mind, couldnt tell.
By putting more money into peoples hands, they use that to create jobs by investment.
Lie number 1, unless you think more McDonalds jobs is a big win. More high tech and manufacturing jobs than ever before are moving overseas to India, China and Poland.
The unemployment rates in the united states are the best they have been since (4.5-4.7%) since 2001.
Lie number 2. The method for calculating unemployment was changed in 2001. To use that as a comparison point is misleading at best. Unemployment based on previous method is higher.
Lie number 2. The method for calculating unemployment was changed in 2001. To use that as a comparison point is misleading at best. Unemployment based on previous method is higher.
Not misleading. First case - if they changed the way the unemployment rate was calculated from 2000, it actually got worse in 2001. Second case - even if they changed it in 2001, from 2001-2007 the rate has been on steady decline using the same constant calculation method. So whether they changed HOW its calculated is a moot point. The graph will show progression using the old or new way, so it doesnt really matter.
Your first statement is a very general statement with no statistics to back it up. The point is to provide jobs so people can have incomes. One one industry declines, another increases. If McDonalds itself just increases its labor force, it actually provides an opening for people who do not have the necessary skills to make it in todays increasingly difficult workforce. This is actually a positive thing in the sense that there are numerous people who are not skilled enough to find work, and it will keep them employed with the opportunity to have benefits, as opposed to not a job at all.
So whether they changed HOW its calculated is a moot point. The graph will show progression using the old or new way, so it doesnt really matter.
Actually, it does matter. If you set the tables to show more people dropping off of the roles than join the roles irregardless of whether those dropping off found jobs or not does not prove improvement.
And point #1 is not an opinion, it's a fact. This country has been switching from a high tech/manufacturing environment to a service oriented environment since the 80's.
And point #1 is not an opinion, it's a fact. This country has been switching from a high tech/manufacturing environment to a service oriented environment since the 80's.
That doesnt have anything to do with the income taxes. It just cheap labor over there. Manufacturing in the US is on the way out but not because of income tax - the increasing environmental sanctions on companies are making it too expensive to alter their manufacturing & waste methods, the wages keep increasing, and technical automation reduces the number of actual human workers needed - we just cannot produce the same items as cheaply as they can overseas. Technology industry is hard for the US to compete in, I work in it. Everything can be outsourced to a company because of cheap labor - for example, many people from India come to the US to get an education, then return to India for work. They do the same jobs as we would here, but for much less money out of the companies pocket, while still allowing the worker to live a richer lifestyle because of the differences in the cost of the dollar.
Nice effort to try to change what I said. Never said it was because of income taxes that the companies are leaving. YOU were the one who said that the rich would re-invest in growing their business (implying it was here). I'm saying they took that tax cut and used it to move outside of the us. I actually agree to a point that it is getting expensive to do business here, but that is because manufacturers prefer a cheaper cost per box overall regardless of market. If they "love america" their market is here, and they should be balancing price vs. buying power. But I know from personal experience that computer manufacturers are targeting foreign markets over us markets, and am speculating based on similar cost/manufacturing models that many other tech industries are doing the same. It's far more complicated than you are suggesting.
Your response reminds me of the Biggest Myth: The trickle down theory: the wealthy with money are only inclined to re-invest when given "more" money to re-invest.
People invest because there is a good investment opportunity. Period. The rich with more money, will not suddenly go throwing their money around in investments like drunken sailors in a whore house just because they got a tax break.
Entrepeneurs often in fact borrow money in order to invest in money-making opportunities and banks do not give business loans based on the amount of money on hand. Investments are based on the opportunity, the demand for a service or product, not cash on hand.
Also, trying to get it to pass so quickly during the fires was pretty poor judgement of the democratic senate.
Facts would probably help you in passing judgement. The veto override vote was held on Thursday, Oct. 18th. The California wildfires started Friday, Oct. 20th. No link between override vote and the start of the wildfires!
By putting more money into peoples hands, they use that to create jobs by investment. The unemployment rates in the united states are the best they have been since (4.5-4.7%) since 2001. Especially since 5% unemployment is considered "full employment". But you may other failures in mind, couldnt tell.
Higher-wage jobs create more income, which leads to more spending. Lower-wage jobs tend to create just enough income for a household to live without creating extra spending money. The median income of working-age households (those headed by someone less than 65) was up 1.3% last year, the first year of income growth since 2000. (This was driven exclusively by younger people, ages 15-24. Households headed by persons 25-64 saw only insignificant gains.) Even so, the median income for these working-age households is down 4%, or about $2,400 lower than in 2000. But when the recession ended in late 2001, poverty and median income did not improve. To the contrary, both have worsened since then, as the so-called jobless recovery made it too difficult for working families—those that depend on paychecks, not stock portfolios—to find enough employment in decent quality jobs.
In the year 2000, poverty was 11.3%, compared to 12.3% in 2006, an increase in the poverty rolls of 4.9 million persons, including 1.2 million children; median household income in 2006 was $48,201, about $1,000 dollars (-2.0 %) below its 2000 level (in 2006 dollars). In other words, economic growth over the last six years has totally bypassed the typical middle-class household.
The share of Americans without health insurance coverage once again increased, from 15.3% in 2005 to 15.8% last year. There were 47.0 million uninsured Americans in 2006, up 2.2 million since its 44.8 million level in 2005. Since 2000, the share of the population without health coverage has increased 2.1 percentage points, an increase of 8.6 million uninsured Americans
sarcasm on< How about the Bush tax cuts ooh-rah!. sarcasm off>
She shoots, she scores. Great job Pearlene.
1/3 of the uninsured are covered by Medicare, 1/3 are covered by Medicaid and 1/3 are hear illegally. The system is not perfect but there is definitely no crisis.
OK you must be a leftwinger trying to make rightwingers look really stupid. If they are covered by either medicare or medicaid they ARE insured. And if they are illegal aliens they arent counted as AMERICANS. Try to keep up or try not to make the charade look so obvious.
1/3 of the uninsured are covered by Medicare, 1/3 are covered by Medicaid and 1/3 are hear illegally. The system is not perfect but there is definitely no crisis.
While it is true that immigrants have higher poverty rates than natives (11.9% vs. 15.2% in 2006), immigrant poverty rates have fallen more quickly than that of non-immigrants in recent years
The decline in insurance coverage in this country can be attributed to declines in private coverage, particularly employment-based health insurance. There is evidence of further unraveling of the employer-based system:, the share of persons covered through work (either their own or a family member’s employer) declined for the sixth year in a row. Employment based coverage was 59.7% in 2006, down from 60.2% in 2005 and a total of 4.5 percentage points since 2000.
Public insurance has not been strong enough to offset these declines, and so the percent of uninsured children rose for the second year in a row. In the last two years, the number of uninsured children rose by 1 million, from 7.7 million in 2004 to 8.7 million in 2006.
"But if I may ask, can you elaborate on what you consider failures on the tax cuts for the upper class? By putting more money into peoples hands, they use that to create jobs by investment."
Why not re-invest that money into the lives of real, live working people instead of back into the rigged market?
Put it back into the hands of the same people who actually produced all that wealth for the leisure class. To return that money to the most productive workforce on the planet in the form of a living wage and healthcare benefits is the first step in a virtuous cycle. It puts more money in the hands of consumers who then purchase more, thus creating more demand for product and work.
But before answering the question, I would first like to thank you for conceeding the fact that the wealthy have disprortionately prospered from the Republican tax reductions on wealth.
So what's the problem with reducing the tax obligation for elite earners? Because it's fair to require the elite to carry a proportional load; and it's fundamentally American to share in the costs and rewards of living in our national community.
Hume "ignor[ed] Bush comment"?
Ick. Is it just possible that Hume was simply unaware of the President's remark? Why does MM insist on casting the most sinister motives on people?
Slow business day, MM?
My 2 cents. Thank you.
Is it too much to ask that the informer be informed?
Ick. Is it just possible that Hume was simply unaware of the President's remark? Why does MM insist on casting the most sinister motives on people?
LOL, ANYONE at Fox UNAWARE of ANYTHING this White House does? Fox is this White House's public mouthpiece and ANY information that the White House wants to reach the public Fox is the one to deliver it with any spin the White House chooses. One does NOTHING without informing the other!
Shoes,
Check your mailbox. I believe you've won some kind of prize.
That is the lamest, most pathetic excuse that anyone has ever used to prop up this administration or any of their enablers at Fox.
Check is in the mailbox, he was rebated his 2 cents.
If he got a check for 2¢, he made money on the deal.
Hume was unaware? Are you kidding me? My 90 year old grandmother is aware of Bush's remark! Of course Hume knows of what Bush said...Hume is considered a Washington insider. He knows about that remark and chose not to acknowlege it because it shows Bush as politicizing the CA fire tragedy.
I hear right wingers hold Hume up as being a fair and balanced straight news guy but that's a bunch of bull. He's a shill for the White House and GOP. FNC cleverly tries to hide his bias but if one really pays attention to what Hume doesn't cover, his bias is front and center.
Shoes . . . please give the shill a little credit . . . he would not be the "revered newsman" reporting on Washington Politics if he was "unaware" of what the President of the United States said during an Official visit to a National Disaster . . . you REALLY should hang on to your 2 cents, you sound like a perfect customer for the "Magic Bean" sellers . . .
Brit Hume is the minister of Propaganda for the Bush Administration. I am suprised he has not been given the job of Press Secretary.
The voters in Louisiana replaced Kathleen Babineaux Blanco with a Republican. Clearly, the voters in this state were not happy with the job done at the state level.
FEMA (which, of course, is not a "first responder") may have dropped the ball during the emergency. However, that does not excuse the state and local government from most of the blame during Katrina.
In this case I have to say that Bush was simply telling the truth. It does matter that local and state governments take leadership roles.
In terms of emergency response you have to look first to local fire and police departments. Then you turn to the state services. Finally, you need to bring in the feds when necessary.
OK, you say FEMA is not a first responder. Let's look back at what really happened, since you obviously have a poor grasp of the Katrina disaster.
Local responders - they were all 10 feet underwater. Kind of hard to respond.
State responders - the bulk of the national guard and their equipment was in Iraq. Kind of hard to grab a red-eye from the Middle East.
FEMA - they had at least 3 days notice about this catastrophe. They deserve the bulk of the blame.
FEMA (which, of course, is not a "first responder") may have dropped the ball during the emergency.
The ‘primary’ reason for the Hurricane Katrina devastation was due to a significant flaw in levee design by the Army Corps of Engineers. And there is NO question that FEMA dropped the ball.
Hey Roundhouse, Did you expect Bush to foresee the levee breach? Would that also mean Clinton maybe should have forseen it as well?
As for the Bush admin. failures to "take charge" before, during and after I think California fires show that it is State'a initial responsibility and not federal. If you must compare. I am a Dem. who is new here but interested, concerned. Your guys' absolute hatred of Bush, Fox news,& Bill o' skews the issues we are trying to discuss in this day & age.
A Dem who blames Clinton for the Katrina disaster?
Oh, of course. That makes SO much sense.
So you are a Democrat who just HAPPENS to regurgitate this weeks hivemind propaganda about the lefts irrational hatred. Sure. I guess that means brainwashed dems are as gullible as brainwashed Republicans
Another dishonestly selective story from Brit. He certainly tried to make it sound like Bush did not mention the "difference local leadership makes" in responding to a disaster. However, local leaders did not hire "good job Brownie, "the horse lawyer" nor did they buy all those trailers and leave most of them parked someplace other than in the areas they were needed, nor did they spray all that formaldehyde all over the trailers they did deliver and that now are ruining the health of their occupants, nor did they buy tons and tons of ice that never reached the victims in New Orleans. Instead, it was trucked from palce to place and it was so late, it was finally just put in storage. Please note, local leaders were NOT responsible for these fiascoes. The President's inept administration surely was. But, for sure, never expect the totally unbalanced Fox News to be accurate on any report involving this hapless President we are stuck with now. Really it may be a service to the Democrats when he makes these statements. Just reminds us of the total ineptness of this president and the huge need for a complete change with enough Democrats to clean up Bush's mess.
This was pretty interesting, living in Southern California and seeing the national and local coverage of the wildfires.
From the initial right wing warnings that "The Left" would be spinning comparisons to Katrina and criticizing any outcome, all I saw was the right wing media back-slapping the fire victims for receiving the assistance that never seemed to materialize in New Orleans.
Except they reframed it as self-sufficient people and state and local level officials takinmg care of business.
Leson: If you're going to live in a disaster-prone area, make sure it's a Republican one.
Damn this was one of the best threads I've read in a long time.Thanks to Tex and Pearlene for probably the 2 greatest comments I've seen here @ MM. Also thanks to the regulars for repeatedly and willingly bashing your head into the wall (aka refuting these wingnuts' and their lack of substance in their arguments).
Keep up the refuting of misinformation, even though it may seem you're bashing your head into a wall, there's plenty of people (such as myself) who don't actively comment on the site who are glad the lies don't get propagated.
Fascinating to see Hume, spokesman for christo-fascist republicans take the opportunity to revise history. Saying that the response failure of FEMA was the fault of Louisiana Democratic Party, he tries to hide the overt racism and political cynicism of his master. His argument is sophistry(wingnuts call your librarian for help with the big words). Even Bush. though reluctantly, admitted guilt in poor leadership. More objective observers would call his administrations incompetence criminal.
And thats not even getting into the post-Katrina politics. Not rebuilding democratic wards, condemning large tracts of traditional neighborhoods just to give sweetheart deals to developers for luxury condos and casinos, changes the demographics of NOLA and Louisiana(see Syndey Blumenthals' post at Salon.com today). Bushco the cabal. Newscorp relentless in its newspeak.
Hate to tell you Brett but history will treat this president has the worst president in the short history of these United states. You my friend are equal responsible for the deaths of over 3800 in this war because you and the rest of your FOX staff sat on your hands and did nothing to us vet's.
Just wish that the over 3800 that lost there lives in this Bush war could look you in the eye and tell you what a piece of work you are.
I could go on but what is the use you have sold your soul to the devil.
A fed up Ret Marine
Allen Stepro Msgt