john5746

I hope every mayor and governor reviews there emergency response plans after this event. If they can't plan and execute the basics, they don't need to worry about details like the above.

Even Bush is saying he isn't happy with the results so far. I still maintain that having the full National Guard force in LA and MS would have helped the situation. This is one cost of the Iraq war. We could have another disaster tomorrow or next week. They are useful resources that need to be brought back home as soon as possible. I would say the same for relief efforts for the Tsunami situation or others. You can't just keep them there as if they have no other purpose. Apparently, no one has an escape plan for a flooded city or emergency evacuation plans for a city. I guess you just tell everyone to leave and fend for themselves.

They have been trying to do it in Iraq They have also been deployed to Iraq. Part of this is another cost of Rebuilding Iraq. It is very apparent that the Guard would have been more prepared to respond if some of the Louisiana and Mississippi Troops were not in Iraq. Not saying this means we should never deploy them on foreign soil' date=' just stating that is one of the costs of having them deployed elsewhere. It was clear this would be needed as soon as Katrina became category 3. I think everyone relaxed a little when the immediate damage in New Orleans appeared to not be catestrophic. The rest of the "blame" would be on the local governments IMO. For years, we have talked about New Orleans being a bowl ready to be filled. They should have been able to commandeer buses and get the sick and poor out of there prior to the hurricane and have more vehicles that can run on water to help. I think this was much more preventable than the Tsunami disaster, but it is normal to see more effort after a disaster than when it is still a maybe.

I believe you. I have a four year degree and made the transition form the manufacturing sector to IT. Bad move financially, but I have a decent job with decent hours, which is more important to me than high pay. That being said, I can look down the road and realize that I will have to get myself in position to earn more, because my wage increase will not keep up with price increases(insurance, taxes, gas, etc.) I thought about going for an MBA a few years back, but it doesn't appear to do much for you, unless you are already a manager or it is from the Top 20. In the past, just having a four year degree in a reasonable field was almost a guarantee of a comfortable living. Now, you may need to change careers several times in your life. As you age, this gets more difficult. I have an uneasy feeling that I could find myself in desperation very easily. And I have money saved, etc. When the housing boom goes bust, it ain't going to be pretty. Then, we will see how bad this "good" economy is for workers.

When Bush went to Florida and helped with his brother, people complained that it was for political gain and that it complicated relief efforts. Yes, it was during an election year, etc. I personally don't think he needs to go there. He has flown over it and is fully aware of how bad things are in the area. I think he and many others can do more good by staying put and running things from a far. What do you want him to do, put waders on and yell out of a speakerphone in New Orleans? As for the media - it sickens me to watch them pester police and relief workers asking them "why aren't you doing anything", when the media are the only ones not doing anything. I know they have a job to do as well, but I think they can be more helpful in these situations.

I hope not. CEOs primary goal is to increase the stock price for the shareholders. Many times, their pay is in the form company stock. Over and over again, we see layoffs and stupid merges that temporarily improve the bottom line and increase stock price, but do nothing for the long-term company health and hurting the employees. The CEO gets payed handsomely, then can parachute to another company and let someone figure out what to do with the company. Not saying that layoffs aren't necessary, just that Presidents can't layoff citizens. Seeing the population improve should be its own reward, if they can't get leaders that think that way, I'm not sure they will ever get their head out of the dirt. I think their "pay" should be tied to how much money goes to the population similar to charities. It gets difficult though, since not paying the leader also means the population doesn't get money also.

Not sure how unsafe they are since I haven't seen under the hood of one, but, I think it is a matter of education. Gas is dangerous also. Hydrogen even more so. My next car will be a hybrid. I avoided the first wave due to mechanics not being able to fix/obtain parts and to see how the technology works in real world conditions. One thing I don't like about hybrids is it brings complexity to the automobile. If it could replace the gas engine, then it would be more a matter of getting familiar with the new technology. Now, you have both to deal with. But, I think it is an option to live with until Hydrogen comes into play next decade.

Some info on Forbes plan: Forbes Plan Forbes knocks National Sales Tax Knocking Forbes Plan It would be 36K for a family of Four.

1 2 3 These are some relavent links. I can't find up to date information, but I think it shows that while productivity and the economy may be improving, wages for the working class are stagnant. I agree with Pangloss that each individual ultimately has the responsibility for their situation, no one should work harder for you than yourself. But, I think we can reasonably say that more wealth should not be distributed toward the wealthy. I think a flat tax would do this and therefore I don't agree with it. I have a pessimistic outlook on America's economic health. Again, I think each individual American can do more than the government by stressing education to their kids, saving - especially in stocks and assets, and not consuming everything in sight. A companies main goal is to increase the coffers of the shareholders, not to take care of their employees. So the government needs to offset this by helping the workers.

mike90: your not the only one who feels this way. We hear the economy is great, but for who? It is obvious to me that the standard of living in America is going down. Granted, we may have more gadgets and our houses may be worth more, but it takes more education and both parents working to acquire a decent income. Hang in there and work hard and pray nothing bad happens to you. And take a gamble or two while you don't have a family to worry about.

So, what was the major problem with Kerry?

We are actually having gas stations running out of gas here in South Carolina. I think they will soon get some shipments, but it will be costly! I don't think Bush could have done much with the oil prices. He has tapped into the reserves and I think he should ask the public to try and only use what is necessary and possibly reduce federal taxation on the gas for a short while.

Yes, and I wished I had noticed it first!

I don't think you understand the tax calculation correctly. A millionaire pays the same tax on the first $27,000 as does a middle class person. You only pay the higher rate on the income WITHIN a bracket, not on the whole amount. This is another reason why it is idiotic to say income taxes discourage higher incomes. People want to find loopholes for sure, but they don't want to earn less money!

That is true, but if one of them died, he would probably think his prayer was answered.

I don't favor a flat tax generally, because the income side isn't flat. When people get a raise, it is a raise based on the percentage of their income. Investments and assets increase by percentages. Costs on the other hand are applied equally. It is very easy to see that rising insurance, college tuition and gas prices will have a much larger effect on the lower income brackets. Since this results in a natural increase in wealth discrepancy, the wealthy should pay more in taxes. I am all in favor of a simplified tax code. The point of it should be to save money, not to be more fair to rich people. A tax doesn't have to be flat to be simple. I think you will find that income taxes get more complicated as income increases - because of loop holes. Sales taxes will end up being the same. How will you exempt based on income? People will want to exempt for children, for education, for yachts, etc. So, if the flat tax does indeed result in the middle class paying less tax, that is great. I don't see how it is possible given all the stats saying the rich pay a large share of the taxes currently. A combined sales/income tax might prove better, with income > 1,000,000 say, be taxed for example. As far as effect on the economy, taxes will always have an effect. People try to avoid taxes period. If we have a large sales tax, consumption will drop, illegal sales activity will increase.

Yes

If he said it to the public, yes I think that would be insanely stupid. Well, If Clinton would have done it, it would have saved Bush from trying it later and taking us through an expensive, possibly meaningless war. Also, I'm not sure Chavez is in the same league as Saddam.

I think this would be considered extremist. Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

what is this rule?

Yes, I saw recently where they are having problems with the older men making the younger men leave to keep them away from their harems. That's one big problem with polygomy that goes one way. Many men are left out of the picture.

You are the liberal version of Pat Robertson.