Obama’s Katrina Record

[Cancel7]

• Sept. 2, 2005: Obama holds press conference urging Illinoisans to contribute to the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
• Sept. 5, 2005: Obama goes to Houston to visit evacuees with Presidents Clinton and Bush.
• Sept. 7, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a national emergency family locator system
• Sept. 8, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a National Emergency Volunteers Corps.
• Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Katrina Emergency Relief Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Harry Reid
• Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Russ Feingold
• Sept. 12, 2005: Obama introduces legislation requiring states to create an emergency evacuation plan for society's most vulnerable
• Sept. 15, 2005: Obama issues public response to President Bush's speech about Gulf Coast rebuilding.
• Sept. 21, 2005: Obama co-sponsors bill to establish a Katrina commission to investigate response to the disaster introduced by Hillary Clinton
• Sept. 21, 2005: Obama appears on NPR to discuss the role of poverty in Hurricane Katrina.
• Sept. 22, 2005: Obama and Coburn's Hurricane Katrina financial oversight bill unanimously passes Senate committee.
• Sept. 22, 2005: Obama's amendment requiring evacuation plans unanimously passes Senate committee.
• Sept. 28, 2005: Obama and Coburn issue statement about the need for a Chief Financial Officer to oversee the financial mismanagement and suspicious contracts occurring in the reconstruction process
• Sept. 29, 2005: Obama and Coburn investigate possible FEMA refusal of free cruise ship offer
• Oct. 6, 2005: Obama and Coburn issue statement on FEMA Decision to re-bid Katrina contracts
• Oct. 6, 2005: Obama co-sponsors Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005.
• Oct. 21, 2005: Obama releases statement decrying the extension of FEMA director, Michael "Brownie" Brown's contract. Obama calls Brown's contract extension, "unconscionable."
• Nov. 17, 2005: Obama and Coburn introduce legislation asking FEMA to immediately re-bid all Katrina reconstruction contracts.
• Feb. 1, 2006: Obama gives Senate floor speech on his legislation to help children affected by Hurricane Katrina
• Feb. 2, 2006: Obama introduces legislation to help low-income children affected by Hurricane Katrina
• Feb. 23, 2006: Obama issues statement responding to a White House report on Hurricane Katrina. Obama noted that the top two recommendations that the report had for the federal government were initiatives he had been working on since immediately after the storm hit. Obama called the administration's response "delinquent."
• May 2, 2006: Obama gives speech about no-bid contracts in Hurricane Katrina reconstruction
• May 4, 2006: Obama's legislation to end no-bid contracts for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction passed the Senate.
• June 15, 2006: Obama and Coburn announce legislation to require amendment to create competitive bidding for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction for federal contracts over $500,000. Although it passed previously, the language was stripped in conference.
• June 15, 2006: Obama releases podcast about his pending Katrina reconstruction legislation in the Senate.
• June 16, 2006: Obama and Coburn get no-bid Hurricane Katrina reconstruction amendment into Department of Defense authorization bill.
• July 14, 2006: Obama and Coburn's legislation to end abuse of no-bid contracts passes senate as amendment to Department of Defense authorization bill.
• August 11, 2006: Obama visits Xavier University in New Orleans to give Commencement address
• August 14, 2006: Obama and Coburn ask FEMA to address ballooning no-bid contracts for Gulf Coast reconstruction
• Sept. 29, 2006: Obama and Coburn legislation to prevent abuse of no-bid contracts in the wake of disaster passes Senate to be sent to President's desk to become law.
• Feb. 2007-Present: As Obama begins his Presidential campaign he references Katrina as a part of his stump speech as he travels around the country in his familiar line, "That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city. That is not who we are."
• June 20, 2007: Obama co-sponsors Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007 introduced by Senator Chris Dodd.
• July 27, 2007: Obama and colleagues get a measure in the Homeland Security bill that will investigate FEMA trailers that may contain the toxic chemical, formaldehyde.
• Aug. 26, 2007: Obama outlines a detailed Hurricane Katrina recovery plan.
• December 18, 2007: Obama calls on President Bush to protect affordable housing in New Orleans
• February 16, 2008: Obama releases statement on toxic Gulf Coast trailers
http://www.obama08-wa.com/?q=here-barack-obamas-record-rebuilding-after-hurricane-katrina

 

[Chapdog]

kill us with info... i just care about the no vote.

 

[Socrtease]

Here is an article that discusses Obama as an Illinois Senator, it is a good article and talks about his ability to cross political aisles to get things accomplished

 

[Cancel7]

kill us with info... i just care about the no vote.

LOL

 

[Cancel7]

Here is an article that discusses Obama as an Illinois Senator, it is a good article and talks about his ability to cross political aisles to get things accomplished

Thanks Soc.

 

[blackascoal]

Never figured you for taking the pussy way out and run tp create another thread instead of standing on whatever facts you may have in the same thread, different title .. that you ran away from when you couldn't handle the truth.

Damn, are you ever sinking ..

Also Obama record on Katrina ... He denied funding this .. after incredible devastation and loss ..

The New Orleans Bridge

Chose rather to fund this ..

The Bridge to Nowhere: A National Embarrassment
by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.

Today, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) will offer an amendment to the Senate’s appropriation bill to transfer the $223 million that Congress had previously approved for a bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, to fund reconstruction of a hurricane-damaged bridge in Louisiana. Dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the bridge in Alaska would connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $320 million, by way of three separate earmarks in the recent highway bill. At present, a ferry service runs to the island, but some in the town complain about its wait (15 to 30 minutes) and fee ($6 per car). The Gravina Island bridge project is an embarrassment to the people of Alaska and the U.S. Congress. Fiscally responsible Members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm

The bridge was never built .. but the road was.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Here is an article that discusses Obama as an Illinois Senator, it is a good article and talks about his ability to cross political aisles to get things accomplished

The article does indeed show that Obama is good at working with all in getting more bills passed and seeing less die.

Do you believe the problems in Washington stem from a lack of bills passed?

Let's not forget that despite Bush being portrayed as a partisan idiot (well the idiot part is right), he actually is the most bipartisan prez since before 1900, he has barely used the veto at all and a LOT of government bills were passed.

"According to the U.S. Senate, George W. Bush has issued nine vetoes. All nine have come during his second term in office. That’s the second-lowest total of any administration since the start of the 20th century. Warren G. Harding, whose fatal heart attack in 1923 limited his term to just two years, issued six vetoes."
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_president_george_w_bush_used_his.html

Bush has a LOT of faults but he was good at working with Dems and passing their shit (remember passing Ted Kennedy's largest ever increase to education tacked onto NCLB.

We don't need another politician like that, we need someone who's got some balls to stop government and McCain is better than Obama there.

 

[Bonestorm]

The article does indeed show that Obama is good at working with all in getting more bills passed and seeing less die.

Do you believe the problems in Washington stem from a lack of bills passed?

Let's not forget that despite Bush being portrayed as a partisan idiot (well the idiot part is right), he actually is the most bipartisan prez since before 1900, he has barely used the veto at all and a LOT of government bills were passed.

"According to the U.S. Senate, George W. Bush has issued nine vetoes. All nine have come during his second term in office. That’s the second-lowest total of any administration since the start of the 20th century. Warren G. Harding, whose fatal heart attack in 1923 limited his term to just two years, issued six vetoes."
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_president_george_w_bush_used_his.html

Bush has a LOT of faults but he was good at working with Dems and passing their shit (remember passing Ted Kennedy's largest ever increase to education tacked onto NCLB.

We don't need another politician like that, we need someone who's got some balls to stop government and McCain is better than Obama there.

Bush worked with Democrats when he had to (2001-2002) then told them to fuck off and signed the bills passed by the Republican Congress (using only signing statements to strike the compromise provisions the Democrats were able to obtain) through 2006 and now vetoes those Democratic bills that happen to make it past the Republican filibuster machine in the Senate.

He's nothing close to bi-partisan at all. It laughable (and rather typical) for you to suggest otherwise.

 

[Socrtease]

I will do everything in my power to insure that McCain does not nominate another Alito or Roberts. The conservatives on this court with one more vote will erode civil liberties and criminal procedural rights as often as they can and they will send women back into the alleys for abortions. If the republicans could nominate someone that was not willing to tote fundamentalist christian water in the form of legislation and supreme Court nominees I would not worry so much, but since the majority of you are willing to be held hostage by a loud and vocal minority in your party, not a chance in hell I will vote republican.

And with the exception of a few bills, Bush signed legislation passed by a republican house and senate. Big whoop. That does not a non partisan make.

 

[Cancel7]

I will do everything in my power to insure that McCain does not nominate another Alito or Roberts. The conservatives on this court with one more vote will erode civil liberties and criminal procedural rights as often as they can and they will send women back into the alleys for abortions. If the republicans could nominate someone that was not willing to tote fundamentalist christian water in the form of legislation and supreme Court nominees I would not worry so much, but since the majority of you are willing to be held hostage by a loud and vocal minority in your party, not a chance in hell I will vote republican.

And with the exception of a few bills, Bush signed legislation passed by a republican house and senate. Big whoop. That does not a non partisan make.

Also labor and consumer rights. I mean, it’s really just a nightmare. Sometimes I get so angry at Obama for some things (but you know, real things), I forget about the court. The only thing that scares me straight is reading bac’s posts, or thinking about the Supreme Court.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I read Dulah's list, and all I see are things he did to throw our money at "Katrina Victims" after the fact. He was instrumental in making Katrina the largest natural disaster relief effort in human history. Many of the so-called "victims" were caught committing outright fraud, claiming 3 to 6 times as much of the relief as entitled, and many were caught spending the money on 'luxury' items, instead of actual emergency relief. Still, kudos to Obama for giving our tax dollars away at a record pace!

But what did Obama do BEFORE the disaster? Bush declared New Orleans a national disaster two days before the hurricane hit, an unprecedented act for any American president. The Red Cross sent dozens of trucks with emergency food and water to the area, only to be stopped at the city limits and not allowed to arrive at its Superdome destination. The much maligned FEMA, sent temporary housing to the area, only to be told it was against the city ordinances to allow 'mobile housing' in New Orleans. I supose Obama, like New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagen, enjoyed a fabulous dinner the evening of the hurricane, miles away from the disaster. But he sure did capitalize on the sympathies of Americans in the aftermath, pushing through legislation he knew would easily pass, to deliver truckloads of taxpayer dollars to the "victims" of the disaster. He did that really well!

 

[Socrtease]

Also labor and consumer rights. I mean, it’s really just a nightmare. Sometimes I get so angry at Obama for some things (but you know, real things), I forget about the court. The only thing that scares me straight is reading bac’s posts, or thinking about the Supreme Court.

Well between now and the election I will make sure to remind you that no matter what BAC might think, Gore would have NEVER nominated an Alito or a Roberts.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Bush worked with Democrats when he had to (2001-2002) then told them to fuck off and signed the bills passed by the Republican Congress (using only signing statements to strike the compromise provisions the Democrats were able to obtain) through 2006 and now vetoes those Democratic bills that happen to make it past the Republican filibuster machine in the Senate.

He's nothing close to bi-partisan at all. It laughable (and rather typical) for you to suggest otherwise.

And do you contend that the Dems pushed NO bills through (with the help of some Repubs) when they were out of power that Bush signed into law?

He did not HAVE to work with Dems in 2001-2002, he did so because he had the stupid bipartisan strategy of Rove of approving Liberal Democrat bills to take away the Liberals issues. If anything he would HAVE to work with them more now as they are a greater majority.

He has still BARELY used the veto since the Dems regained power in 2006.

Bottom line is we need a prez who can STOP more bills passing because the vast majority are just spending bills. Obama's record runs against him there and McCain's does not.

 

[Cancel7]

Never figured you for taking the pussy way out and run tp create another thread instead of standing on whatever facts you may have in the same thread, different title .. that you ran away from when you couldn't handle the truth.

Damn, are you ever sinking ..

Also Obama record on Katrina ... He denied funding this .. after incredible devastation and loss ..

The New Orleans Bridge

Chose rather to fund this ..

The Bridge to Nowhere: A National Embarrassment
by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.

Today, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) will offer an amendment to the Senate’s appropriation bill to transfer the $223 million that Congress had previously approved for a bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, to fund reconstruction of a hurricane-damaged bridge in Louisiana. Dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the bridge in Alaska would connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $320 million, by way of three separate earmarks in the recent highway bill. At present, a ferry service runs to the island, but some in the town complain about its wait (15 to 30 minutes) and fee ($6 per car). The Gravina Island bridge project is an embarrassment to the people of Alaska and the U.S. Congress. Fiscally responsible Members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm

The bridge was never built .. but the road was.

Bac I clicked view post on this one post of yours. For the most part I will not be doing that. I truly and sincerely find you to be a very dishonest debater, and I just really don’t want the aggravation. You’re a malcontent who will never be happy, and you present very dishonest information, in a very dishonest manner. And I’ve never really been susceptible to being called a “pussy”. <shrug> No hard feelings, but I just don’t need it.

And posting info from right wing sites is truly ironic only because you chased Care around this board berating her for “taking comfort and support from Republicans” I mean, honestly, it’s just too much hypocrisy for me. I have low blood pressure, but really, how long can that last?

 

[Cancel7]

Well between now and the election I will make sure to remind you that no matter what BAC might think, Gore would have NEVER nominated an Alito or a Roberts.

LOL

Thanks soc.

 

[Bonestorm]

And do you contend that the Dems pushed NO bills through (with the help of some Repubs) when they were out of power that Bush signed into law?

He did not HAVE to work with Dems in 2001-2002, he did so because he had the stupid bipartisan strategy of Rove of approving Liberal Democrat bills to take away the Liberals issues. If anything he would HAVE to work with them more now as they are a greater majority.

He has still BARELY used the veto since the Dems regained power in 2006.

Bottom line is we need a prez who can STOP more bills passing because the vast majority are just spending bills. Obama's record runs against him there and McCain's does not.

1) He had to work with Dems in 2001-2002. Dems controlled the Senate and controlled what went to the floor for a vote. Otherwise, it was gridlock.

2) He would have to work with them now if they were inclined to work with him. They are not since they were shit on for four years. They've decided to do what they can notwithstanding his opposition. Also, Bush has benefited from the Republican minority's record setting filibustering. They've been able to stop most of the bills they don't like from getting to him.

3) He has vetoed 12 bills in less than 2 years. Extrapolate that over an eight year term.

4) Just argue "divided government" instead of making stupid and demonstrably false arguments for McCain.

 

[KingCondanomation]

I will do everything in my power to insure that McCain does not nominate another Alito or Roberts. The conservatives on this court with one more vote will erode civil liberties and criminal procedural rights as often as they can and they will send women back into the alleys for abortions. If the republicans could nominate someone that was not willing to tote fundamentalist christian water in the form of legislation and supreme Court nominees I would not worry so much, but since the majority of you are willing to be held hostage by a loud and vocal minority in your party, not a chance in hell I will vote republican.

Well, I think it's a certainty that the Dems will increase their lead in the senate and house right? Obama in as prez means complete Democrat power, no checks at all.
I've heard the abortion bogeyman before, yet with full power Repubs couldn't even get the partial abortion ban to happen and very few were for more than that, McCain certainly would not be. McCain is faking his social Conservative shit, hence the Palin choice, I wouldn't worry about him on that at all. Nor would a Dem congress allow a Conservative to get in the court and all the original 4 Liberal judges are still there.

And with the exception of a few bills, Bush signed legislation passed by a republican house and senate. Big whoop. That does not a non partisan make.

Just because the Dems were out of power does not mean they didn't get ALL their bills through the senate, they knew which ones they could rely on for support from Chafee, Snowe, Collins and other moderate Repubs.

 

[KingCondanomation]

1) He had to work with Dems in 2001-2002. Dems controlled the Senate and controlled what went to the floor for a vote. Otherwise, it was gridlock.
2) He would have to work with them now if they were inclined to work with him. They are not since they were shit on for four years. They've decided to do what they can notwithstanding his opposition.

If anything there was worse feelings in 2001 when jumping Jim Jeffords fucked them up, Daschle was not willing to work with Bush anymore than Reid, the difference is with Bush following the stupid Rove script.

Also, Bush has benefited from the Republican minority's record setting filibustering. They've been able to stop most of the bills they don't like from getting to him.

If this is true, then I could give you some points on Bush, but you lose on the larger point of proving Conservative Repubs stop spending bills. You've just shown the proof.

3) He has vetoed 12 bills in less than 2 years. Extrapolate that over an eight year term.

A good point but it's still small by the number of Dem bills that are passed and compared to most presidents.

4) Just argue "divided government" instead of making stupid and demonstrably false arguments for McCain.

I thought I was. McCain has shown some balls in standing up to pork, I don't think the arguments over him using the veto and passing less bills are false.

 

[Bonestorm]

If anything there was worse feelings in 2001 when jumping Jim Jeffords fucked them up, Daschle was not willing to work with Bush anymore than Reid, the difference is with Bush following the stupid Rove script.

There may have been worse feelings for Bush but not for the Democrats. They were pleased to be the working majority. Bush had to work with them, they didn't have to work with him. They did though.

If this is true, then I could give you some points on Bush, but you lose on the larger point of proving Conservative Repubs stop spending bills. You've just shown the proof.

It is true. Look it up. Conservative Repubs don't stop spending bills. See 2002-2006. They stop spending on things the Democrats want, liek healthcare for children.

A good point but it's still small by the number of Dem bills that are passed and compared to most presidents.

12 vetoes in less than 2 years coupled with the most filibusters ever in the same period is not small by any stretch of the imagination.

I thought I was. McCain has shown some balls in standing up to pork, I don't think the arguments over him using the veto and passing less bills are false.

You were making a divided government argument based on a series of false pretenses. Just say that divided government results in less government spending as a general matter. It has the added benefit of being supported by facts.