Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/15/2005 7:25:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 7:04:11 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Get out yer wallets (again).


Bush to address U.S. on Katrina plans

Faced with the unprecedented destruction of a major U.S. city and communities across the Gulf Coast, President Bush is using an address to the nation to offer a package of new federal aid to help uprooted hurricane victims rebuild their lives.

Bush is announcing his reconstruction plan in New Orleans on Thursday night during a televised address also aimed at mending his image as a strong leader in a time of crisis.

It is Bush's first formal prime-time speech during more than two weeks of suffering along the Gulf, with most of the victims chased out by floodwaters in New Orleans. Bush planned to speak from the heart of the French Quarter, while across the city officials were still working to pump out waters and collect bodies left behind.

Bush is planning to show sympathy for the misery brought on by the killer storm while charting a hopeful vision for the future.

Many people, including members of the president's party, have said he should have given that kind of speech soon after the hurricane made landfall along the coast on August 29.

Presidential advisers drafting the speech were working on plans for legislation that would provide job training and housing for people who have to start over, according to one Republican official. The advisers also were discussing tax credits for businesses to stay in the devastated region, said the official, who was consulted but wanted to remain anonymous because Bush had yet to deliver the speech.

Polling shows Americans are willing to pay to rebuild New Orleans. According to a CBS-New York Times poll released Wednesday, 73 percent expect their taxes will increase as a result of Katrina, and more than half said they were willing to pay more taxes to help with Katrina recovery, job training and housing for victims.
.
.
.



I guess the $600 per household they already approved wasn't enough.

Will they go for $1,000?

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 8:55:22 AM EDT

Hello?

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 8:59:41 AM EDT
My mother and step-father are both self-employed. They have been out of work since the hurricane hit.

They haven't gotten any damn money from the government. Yet certain people in the town, have gone so far as to have charged the Red Cross workers. The National Guard and Police had to be called in because things were getting rough.

Some people in our town have two or more "cards" for buying food with. Have my parents, or any of my relatives gotten anything? No. I don't understand what the deal is. I'd say the 600 dollars is only going to 'certain' households, and that is unfair.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:01:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Hello?




Why, hello!

How are you?
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:03:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 9:04:15 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By mosesac:
My mother and step-father are both self-employed. They have been out of work since the hurricane hit.

They haven't gotten any damn money from the government. Yet certain people in the town, have gone so far as to have charged the Red Cross workers. The National Guard and Police had to be called in because things were getting rough.

Some people in our town have two or more "cards" for buying food with. Have my parents, or any of my relatives gotten anything? No. I don't understand what the deal is. I'd say the 600 dollars is only going to 'certain' households, and that is unfair.

No you got it backwards.

That $600 is coming FROM YOUR household. And from EVERY household in America.

Our gov't has already taken $600 from YOU to give to "certain" people affected by the hurricane.

And now Robin Hood is coming back to filch even MORE from you to redistribute to them.


I'm guessing it'll easily top $1,000 taken from each and every household to give to those "certain" people.

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:10:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By mosesac:
My mother and step-father are both self-employed. They have been out of work since the hurricane hit.

They haven't gotten any damn money from the government. Yet certain people in the town, have gone so far as to have charged the Red Cross workers. The National Guard and Police had to be called in because things were getting rough.

Some people in our town have two or more "cards" for buying food with. Have my parents, or any of my relatives gotten anything? No. I don't understand what the deal is. I'd say the 600 dollars is only going to 'certain' households, and that is unfair.

No you got it backwards.

That $600 is coming FROM YOUR household. And from EVERY household in America.

Our gov't has already taken $600 from YOU to give to "certain" people affected by the hurricane.

And now Robin Hood is coming back to filch even MORE from you to redistribute to them.


I'm guessing it'll easily top $1,000 taken from each and every household to give to those "certain" people.



True, I didn't think of it that way

I'm in WV for school this semester and I talk to my folks everyday. The tensions down there are running high, and it's only going to get worse. They were handing out foodstamps to those who normally -DONT- get them today. Hopefully that goes over smoothly, but I'm sure those who do normally get them will be down there trying to get more. It's unreal. Several churches in the area have simply stopped helping because of the way things were going. There were fights, and people shoving in line.

I had always thought we lived in a semi-civilized society but this has proven otherwise. A worker from the north with the Red Cross told my mother that she had never seen anything like this.. Speaking about the way people were acting.

I'm not even down there, but it has not ceased to piss me off. My family deserves the help too damnit.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:14:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 9:14:49 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By mosesac:
I'm in WV for school this semester and I talk to my folks everyday. The tensions down there are running high, and it's only going to get worse. They were handing out foodstamps to those who normally -DONT- get them today. Hopefully that goes over smoothly, but I'm sure those who do normally get them will be down there trying to get more. It's unreal. Several churches in the area have simply stopped helping because of the way things were going. There were fights, and people shoving in line.

I had always thought we lived in a semi-civilized society but this has proven otherwise. A worker from the north with the Red Cross told my mother that she had never seen anything like this.. Speaking about the way people were acting.

I'm not even down there, but it has not ceased to piss me off. My family deserves the help too damnit.

My mother-in-law has been a Red Cross worker for over 10 years.

She quit over the treatment she had to put up with.

Fuck'em.

I hope things work out for your family. That sucks that good people are smothered by animals who steal what they haven't worked for.

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:18:33 AM EDT
I already pay for half the state of Maine....why not spread my middle class income across New Orleans.

Someone's gotta subsidize the reconstruction of a town 30-feet below sea level.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:21:54 AM EDT
Speech before the House of Representatives
by David (Davy) Crockett

Not Yours to Give

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr. Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

"He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course, was lost.

"Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be one for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--'

" 'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.

" 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitu- tion, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it's power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I did not have sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.

"He laughingly replied: 'Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around this district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied that it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert a little influence in that way.'

"If I don't [said I] I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.

" 'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute to a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week.. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

"Well, I will be here. but one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.

" 'My name is Bunce.'

"Not Horatio Bunce?

" 'Yes.'

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him --- no, that is not the word --- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted --- at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens --- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.

"He came upon the stand and said: " 'Fellow-citizens --- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I wish to call to your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men --- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased --- a debt which could not be paid by money --- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificance a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it." David Crockett was born August 17, 1786 at Limestone (Greene County), Tennessee. He died March 06, 1836 as one of the brave Southerners defending the Alamo.

Crockett had settled in Franklin County, Tennessee in 1811. He served in the Creek War under Andrew Jackson. In 1821 and 1823 he was elected to the Tennessee legislature. In 1826 and 1828 he was elected to Congress. He was defeated in 1830 for his outspoken opposition to President Jackson's Indian Bill - but was elected again in 1832.

In Washington, although his eccentricities of dress and manner excited comment, he was always popular on account of his shrewd common sense and homely wit; although generally favoring Jackson's policy, he was entirely independent and refused to vote to please any party leader.

At the end of the congressional term, he joined the Texans in the war against Mexico, and in 1836 was one of the roughly 180 men who died defending the Alamo. Tradition has it that Crockett was one of only six survivors after the Mexicans took the fort, and that he and the others were taken out and executed by firing squad
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:24:03 AM EDT
My wife & I were all set to send what would be a significant amount of $ ( as compared to our income ) for Katrina relief. The govt seems to be doing this for us. So for now we are going to hold on our $ and see how much the feds give hurricane victims.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:26:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 9:27:43 AM EDT by KlubMarcus]
It's all part of the plan.

HUD Unveils New Orleans Housing Concept
by Scott Ott

... An artist's rendering of the proposed new public housing complex shows what appears to be a vast train yard, with thousands of Amtrak cars refitted as charming family residences. At the end of each column of railcar-homes, the sketch shows several engines.

"When the evacuation order comes," an unnamed HUD spokesman said, "the conductor hollers 'All aboard'. People get into their homes, and off we go." The HUD source said the idea was proposed by Mr. Bush himself. ...

Amtrak is a quasi-governmental agency whose mission is to transport taxpayer dollars out of federal coffers to an undisclosed location.

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:35:47 AM EDT
The people I know wonder why I never give money to relief agencies. I'm footing the bill for them anyway. If my house was destroyed the Gov't theives wouldn't give me a dime. Why, I work!

Who's going to feel it? Not the guy making 7-8 figures living in a mansion in Beverly Hills. Its the family one paycheck away from losing everything.

You think these people on welfare are going to take advantage of paid Education? Why its easier to do nothing and get paid for it. Sure some will, but most won't. They will get new houses and fatter welfare checks.

The Gov't WE should give them checks only if they get job training and once job training is over they have 1 month to find a job , because the check isn't in the mail.

If Islam hits 3 cities with a NBC, we going to clean and rebuild those cities too?

What a bunch of bleeding heart BS! They knew NO was eventually going to get hit by a Cat 4 or 5.

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:49:56 AM EDT
George Will has a great column out this week about the Katrina problem. He points to the giant hole that occupies a few city blocks in lower Manhatten four years after 9/11.

Bush is going to say the same thing tonight that he said four years ago, "We will rebuild!" New Orleans is a tad more than a few city blocks.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 10:01:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 10:08:15 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Speech before the House of Representatives
by David (Davy) Crockett

Not Yours to Give

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr. Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.
.
.
.


How times change. Great passage. Thanks.

Here's more on that topic:

"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."
~ President Grover Cleveland,
1887, in vetoing an appropriation to help drought-stricken counties in Texas.

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity... (such spending) would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
~ President Franklin Pierce,
1854; vetoing an appropriation bill to help the mentally ill.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
~ Thomas Jefferson,
in 1817.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
~ James Madison,
in 1788.

And Finally...

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
~ James Madison,
in 1792 objecting to Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist French refugees. All the more stinging coming from the "Father Of The Constitution".


Link Posted: 9/15/2005 1:10:51 PM EDT
Those quotes should be jammed in the face of evey representitive repeatedly until they avow the spirit of the constitution.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 4:07:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 5:08:11 PM EDT
He is speaking now...
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 5:11:21 PM EDT
Any emergency in = constitution out the window switch over to communism



fucking leeches


Link Posted: 9/15/2005 5:12:53 PM EDT
nothing disrespectful toward the President, but if it's "blah blah blah, spend spend spend, etc." then I don't want to hear it.

Wake me up if he curses the gunsnatching cops for what they did in disarming honest lawabiding folks.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 5:15:11 PM EDT
Like a goddamned drunken sailor.

I'll bet all those who spent their entire lives investing in flood insurance sure feel silly now, huh?
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:02:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 7:03:34 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Okay I missed the speech.

So just tell me how much to make the check out for... this time.


Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:06:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Okay I missed the speech.

So just tell me how much to make the check out for... this time.





No need.

They'll just ED your land and build a shopping mall that will generate more tax revenue.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:08:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 7:09:16 PM EDT by Janus]
double post
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:04:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Okay I missed the speech.

So just tell me how much to make the check out for... this time.





I'm sure the amount you owe is beeing more than taken care of in the additoinal taxes that Uncle Sammy is getting from the inflated cost of gas. Sales tax + the taxes the coporations have to pay. Owe wait.. they probably bought themselves out of ever having to pay taxes with Ted Kennedy or some other slime bag.

Maybe they'll make a whole new "Relief Tax" that will be like SS... we pay into it... it sits ina big pile until needed and is NEVER spent before it's needed....
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:14:19 PM EDT
What would a couple dozen Bulldozers cost?
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:23:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Speech before the House of Representatives
by David (Davy) Crockett

Not Yours to Give

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr. Crockett arose:




Long dead.... and it's a shame.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:38:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Speech before the House of Representatives
by David (Davy) Crockett

Not Yours to Give



Long dead.... and it's a shame.



Yes but Ron Paul has given some great speeches lately, every generation has at least one great statesman, but the congress is now populated with the opposite of Rep R Paul.


Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:50:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Speech before the House of Representatives
by David (Davy) Crockett

Not Yours to Give

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr. Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

"He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course, was lost.

"Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be one for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--'

" 'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.

" 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitu- tion, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it's power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I did not have sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.

"He laughingly replied: 'Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around this district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied that it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert a little influence in that way.'

"If I don't [said I] I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.

" 'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute to a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week.. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

"Well, I will be here. but one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.

" 'My name is Bunce.'

"Not Horatio Bunce?

" 'Yes.'

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him --- no, that is not the word --- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted --- at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens --- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.

"He came upon the stand and said: " 'Fellow-citizens --- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I wish to call to your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men --- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased --- a debt which could not be paid by money --- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificance a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it." David Crockett was born August 17, 1786 at Limestone (Greene County), Tennessee. He died March 06, 1836 as one of the brave Southerners defending the Alamo.

Crockett had settled in Franklin County, Tennessee in 1811. He served in the Creek War under Andrew Jackson. In 1821 and 1823 he was elected to the Tennessee legislature. In 1826 and 1828 he was elected to Congress. He was defeated in 1830 for his outspoken opposition to President Jackson's Indian Bill - but was elected again in 1832.

In Washington, although his eccentricities of dress and manner excited comment, he was always popular on account of his shrewd common sense and homely wit; although generally favoring Jackson's policy, he was entirely independent and refused to vote to please any party leader.

At the end of the congressional term, he joined the Texans in the war against Mexico, and in 1836 was one of the roughly 180 men who died defending the Alamo. Tradition has it that Crockett was one of only six survivors after the Mexicans took the fort, and that he and the others were taken out and executed by firing squad



Wow. WELL worth the read. Thanks, Stratiotes.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 10:11:50 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 10:59:27 PM EDT
It's a mistake to rebuild NO as a city for the benefit of the residents of that place. It's only a matter of time before some other storm rolls in and levels the place again.

There is a HUGE benefit in keeping the port and the oil and gas rigs operating. Should we allow public funds to be distributed to the companies affected by this disaster?

No! No welfare means NO WELFARE. If it's not profitable to do business there, then FIND ANOTHER LOCATION. Bottom line, if we're not going to hand our money out to the citizens, then no corporate welfare for the shareholders EITHER.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:05:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:10:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Our gov't has already taken $600 from YOU to give to "certain" people affected by the hurricane.




No they haven't. It's been added to the national debt. Our children will be paying for it, while they watch the next hurricane do it all over again.

Ever notice that it's only the elected politicians who are crying to rebuild? When they interview former residents, I haven't seen one person who's house is gone say they are going to rebuild/come back.

They middle class people of that area are GONE and they ain't coming back. The poverty of the the rebuilt area will only be worse.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:35:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 5:42:15 AM EDT by Progunvoter]
This is the most pathetic President I can remember. He makes that bum Clinton look good. God help us. Did you hear or read the part of his speach about having Federal troops ready to go into the Cities using the authority of 'homeland security'? He wants MORE federal power.

Well run States don't NEED federal troops - just the backward and currupt and incompetent.

Besides spending money unwisely, he's using this event to concentrate Federal power over the States.
Federal troups patrol American Cities, firing upon whom? The citizens are well-armed, we don't need Federal Troups for 'security'. Am I to be disarmed in the name of 'fairness' so that Federal Troups can patrol against getto looters? All in the name of homeland security.

It's much worse than we think. Good intentions gone bad.

All you right wingers smell the coffee with me will ya? The ONLY good thing about this presidency is that he kept Kerry out of office. Although I don't know who's a bigger spender and welfare panderer. A stupid war to get NON-EXISTING weapons - Billions spend, thousand dead and maimed for LIFE.

Dang, you would think the democrates could have produced a better agenda - but they don't. It is a sad day for free America.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:46:55 AM EDT
How is it determined who gets what portion of the fed money?
How is it dispursed to the people? Into their bank accounts, check, cash? Or is it paid to the contractors that will build them a new home?
Do the recipients have any obligation to use that money to rebuild their homes? Or can they just as easily use it to buy sneakers and jewelry, like they did with the Red Cross debit cards?
How will they account for all of the money spent to make sure it's not being wasted abused.

That Davey Crockett speech above should be read in front of congress every time they consider "giving" relief money, not only to US citizens but to every other country in the world. It's not theirs to give and odds are most people, give then choice to vote on it, would vote against it. The government should make decisions that are based on emotions.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:56:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Progunvoter:
The citizens are well-armed, we don't need Federal Troups for 'security'.



Because the .gov doesn't think that regular people that own and use guns, some more frequently and more proficient than troops, have the capacity to know who and who not to shoot in this situation.

I think, to them [the .gov], it's like playing a PC strategy war game... like Command an Conquer. They decide who shoudl and should not be shot. It's like battlefield accounting. They encounter opposition, make the deterination for justified deadly force, shoot, take count of how many they killed and submit all the paperwork in true CYA form.

They have a tight leash on the troops... and probably, to and extent, for good reason. The every-man running around taking the law into his own hands under the blanket of self-defense, may be easily corrupted by so much power, and eventually lose focus of who their shooting and why.

Not saying I don't support being able to defend oneself... but in this particular case it goes beyond that. It seems like a lot of people are suggesting that an armed local "militia" would be as good or better to deal with their city's crime problem than a controlled force that adheres to rules of engagement.
Top Top