Fortunately Tal's possition here is very consistent. We shouldn't rush to blame the president. I'm sure that if you were talking to him in in ninties he would have a been a staunch supporter of Clinton.
1) The timelines which have been provided (both by me and Pearl) which show a lot of inaction by Bush during the time of "gathering threat" by Katrina.
Hey now, the man was on vacation. You can't expect him to just cut short his vacation for every little event. It's only a 5 week vacation, and only his second one of the year. Show a little respect!
2) The facts (by jar and others) that FEMA had good knowledge of what could happen, and was likely happening, and in fact happening... where was Bush's concern in this?
You can't expect Bush to react to stuff he doesn't know about. Just because something is "happening" and people have "predicted it" doesn't mean that the president needs to give any weight to that "reality". Frankly, the levees were not big donars to his campaign, in fact, levees don't vote. And, as far as I can tell, none of the levees sits atop an oil field. There's only so much attention one man can give.
3) The newly revealed facts that key appointees by Bush to FEMA were patently political cronies with little to no expertise in the areas of disaster management.
If you don't think that an Arabian Horse organization has similiarities to a national emergency response organization, then I would suggest that you haven't spent much time around Arabian horses. Frequently the horses run wild destroying whole cities, causing billions of dollars worth of damages.
4) The latest actions by the Bush administration, awarding major contracts to cronies of the White House (already controversial recipients of lucrative grants in Iraq which have had financial discrepencies) to rebuild devastated regions, while issuing an emergency executive order so that those same contracting orgs may UNDERPAY anyone hired to actually do the physical labor of rebuilding.
There's no law that says that the people controlling the government can't take all the money and give it to their friends. The whole point of fixing the election in the first place was to be able to insure that the incredibly rich people in the country get a bigger and bigger slice of the governments tax income.
These same people argue that the market should decide what the wages are, and that if an employer is proposing too low a wage, people will work elsewhere - and with the increased amount of employment opportunities they will have that choice.
We're drifting off topic, so lets start a minimum wage thread but...
When Walmart drives out the other businesses and gas costs $3.00 a gallon, there really aren't that many employment opportunities. Not everyone lives in a city where there are many jobs clustered together. There is a definite threshhold which says, if you don't make enough to own and maintain a car, you probably aren't ever going to make enough to own and maintain a car