Aceshardware

foo · Joined: 27 Jun 2007 Posts: 116

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/world/asia/17china.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

a couple of quotes:
"In the last six weeks alone, a senior banking regulator blamed Washington’s “warped conception” of market regulation for the subprime mortgage crisis that is rattling the world economy; the Chinese envoy to the World Trade Organization called on the United States to halt the dollar’s unchecked depreciation before the slide further worsens soaring oil and food prices; and Chinese agencies denounced a federal committee charged with vetting foreign investments in the United States, saying the Americans were showing “hostility” and a “discriminatory attitude,” not least toward the Chinese."

"The Chinese attitude is no doubt bolstered by the lame-duck status of the Bush administration and by the fact that the United States is widely seen as having squandered its political and military leadership during the war in Iraq, which China opposed. Likewise, Chinese officials and state news media have suggested that the relatively quick mobilization of the Chinese Army during the recent earthquake in Sichuan Province contrasts favorably with the Bush administration’s reaction to Hurricane Katrina."

Pjotr · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 130

LOL, I like the last sentence there... pushy. :-)

GMDavis · Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Posts: 30

foo wrote:

"In the last six weeks alone, a senior banking regulator blamed Washington’s “warped conception” of market regulation for the subprime mortgage crisis that is rattling the world economy;

It was actually a lack of regulation that caused the sub-prime crisis

Quote:

the Chinese envoy to the World Trade Organization called on the United States to halt the dollar’s unchecked depreciation before the slide further worsens soaring oil and food prices;

Agreed.
Bush is handling the dollar like any business student, "let the market decide" which is not the best idea for this situation.

Quote:

and Chinese agencies denounced a federal committee charged with vetting foreign investments in the United States, saying the Americans were showing “hostility” and a “discriminatory attitude,” not least toward the Chinese."

You mean like stopping the Chinese from buying Budweiser?
Oh, that’s right, it’s a European take over.
Every county has limits on what can be taken over.

Quote:

"The Chinese attitude is no doubt bolstered by the lame-duck status of the Bush administration and by the fact that the United States is widely seen as having squandered its political and military leadership during the war in Iraq, which China opposed.

Possibly
But realations do seem to be on the mend with Merkel, Sarkozy, et al .

Quote:

Likewise, Chinese officials and state news media have suggested that the relatively quick mobilization of the Chinese Army during the recent earthquake in Sichuan Province contrasts favorably with the Bush administration’s reaction to Hurricane Katrina."

Spoken by people who dont understand the emergency process in the US.
It was a failure at the local level first and foremost.

Throughout the day: Because between 35 and 40 percent of Louisiana's National Guard is on duty in Iraq, Gov. Blanco has fewer than 6,000 troops available for responding to Katrina. Over the weekend, she activates about 3,500 of them; by Monday, about 5,700 are ready.
Realizing that the Louisiana National Guard is thinned by deployments in Iraq, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offers to send his own state Guard troops, an offer that Blanco accepts. But in order to send the troops, Blanco must issue a formal request to the National Guard Bureau in Washington; according to the Boston Globe, she makes that request on Tuesday. New Mexico's troops arrive only at the end of the week. It's unclear why Blanco's formal request comes so late; state officials will later tell reporters that the governor's office, overwhelmed in the first days of the storm, had trouble dealing with the legal complexities -- red tape -- required to bring in a national response. Because of the legal difficulties Blanco encounters in trying to bring in other troops, Guard units from other states just trickle in.

Red tape appears to stand in the way of another critical issue on Sunday: evacuations. The Louisiana National Guard requests 700 buses from FEMA to evacuate people on the coast but receives only 100, again according to the Boston Globe. It's unclear why FEMA gave the Guard so few buses. A FEMA official later told the New York Times that it didn't offer Louisiana more buses because the state issued a formal request for buses only on Wednesday. In fact, state officials requested buses all through the week. It's unclear if they were asking in the right way.

Later, Blanco will be faulted for not specifying what exactly she needs -- active-duty troops, who would be under the president's command, or more National Guard troops, whom she would direct. "She wouldn't know the 82nd Airborne from the Harlem Boys' Choir," Newsweek will quote a state official as saying. Blanco's vague request will prove to be a key part of a struggle between federal and state officials as the week progresses, one that contributes to the inadequate response.

On his way back from Crawford, Bush surveys hurricane damage from the window of Air Force One. When he gets back to Washington, Blanco calls him and asks for more help: She wants 40,000 troops. The request sparks a discussion in the administration over the question of federalizing the effort. By law, active-duty troops aren't allowed to perform domestic law-and-order functions; they can only do so if Blanco signs over control of the effort to the federal government, or if Bush usurps her power by invoking the Insurrection Act.

The Bush administration asks Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco (D) to request a federal takeover of relief efforts. The move would have given the federal government control over Louisiana’s National Guard and local police. The state eventually rejected the proposal.
[/b]

foo · Joined: 27 Jun 2007 Posts: 116

GMDavis wrote:

foo wrote:

"In the last six weeks alone, a senior banking regulator blamed Washington’s “warped conception” of market regulation for the subprime mortgage crisis that is rattling the world economy;

It was actually a lack of regulation that caused the sub-prime crisis

maybe you missed the "warped conception" part, the article is not criticizing regulation, but *warped kind of regulation*

Quote:

the Chinese envoy to the World Trade Organization called on the United States to halt the dollar’s unchecked depreciation before the slide further worsens soaring oil and food prices;

Agreed.
Bush is handling the dollar like any business student, "let the market decide" which is not the best idea for this situation.

Quote:

and Chinese agencies denounced a federal committee charged with vetting foreign investments in the United States, saying the Americans were showing “hostility” and a “discriminatory attitude,” not least toward the Chinese."

You mean like stopping the Chinese from buying Budweiser?
Oh, that’s right, it’s a European take over.
Every county has limits on what can be taken over.

you have to agree that the US has been acting increasingly protectionist (e.g open skies), oh and the democrats are also to blame, not just dubya

Quote:

"The Chinese attitude is no doubt bolstered by the lame-duck status of the Bush administration and by the fact that the United States is widely seen as having squandered its political and military leadership during the war in Iraq, which China opposed.

Possibly
But realations do seem to be on the mend with Merkel, Sarkozy, et al .

maybe you should watch/read the news elsewhere as well and not jut in the states, try Europe
Europeans (their leaders included) are waiting for dubya to go home, and are hoping for an obama win
maybe then both parties will work on fixing their relations (which i hope they do because the US and Europe have a lot more in common than differences)

Quote:

Likewise, Chinese officials and state news media have suggested that the relatively quick mobilization of the Chinese Army during the recent earthquake in Sichuan Province contrasts favorably with the Bush administration’s reaction to Hurricane Katrina."

Spoken by people who dont understand the emergency process in the US.
It was a failure at the local level first and foremost.

a lot has been written about this, in the NYT and elsewhere
(e.g. the fact that FEMA was essentially run by cronies...)

Quote:

Throughout the day: Because between 35 and 40 percent of Louisiana's National Guard is on duty in Iraq, Gov. Blanco has fewer than 6,000 troops available for responding to Katrina. Over the weekend, she activates about 3,500 of them; by Monday, about 5,700 are ready.
Realizing that the Louisiana National Guard is thinned by deployments in Iraq, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offers to send his own state Guard troops, an offer that Blanco accepts. But in order to send the troops, Blanco must issue a formal request to the National Guard Bureau in Washington; according to the Boston Globe, she makes that request on Tuesday. New Mexico's troops arrive only at the end of the week. It's unclear why Blanco's formal request comes so late; state officials will later tell reporters that the governor's office, overwhelmed in the first days of the storm, had trouble dealing with the legal complexities -- red tape -- required to bring in a national response. Because of the legal difficulties Blanco encounters in trying to bring in other troops, Guard units from other states just trickle in.

Red tape appears to stand in the way of another critical issue on Sunday: evacuations. The Louisiana National Guard requests 700 buses from FEMA to evacuate people on the coast but receives only 100, again according to the Boston Globe. It's unclear why FEMA gave the Guard so few buses. A FEMA official later told the New York Times that it didn't offer Louisiana more buses because the state issued a formal request for buses only on Wednesday. In fact, state officials requested buses all through the week. It's unclear if they were asking in the right way.

Later, Blanco will be faulted for not specifying what exactly she needs -- active-duty troops, who would be under the president's command, or more National Guard troops, whom she would direct. "She wouldn't know the 82nd Airborne from the Harlem Boys' Choir," Newsweek will quote a state official as saying. Blanco's vague request will prove to be a key part of a struggle between federal and state officials as the week progresses, one that contributes to the inadequate response.

On his way back from Crawford, Bush surveys hurricane damage from the window of Air Force One. When he gets back to Washington, Blanco calls him and asks for more help: She wants 40,000 troops. The request sparks a discussion in the administration over the question of federalizing the effort. By law, active-duty troops aren't allowed to perform domestic law-and-order functions; they can only do so if Blanco signs over control of the effort to the federal government, or if Bush usurps her power by invoking the Insurrection Act.

The Bush administration asks Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco (D) to request a federal takeover of relief efforts. The move would have given the federal government control over Louisiana’s National Guard and local police. The state eventually rejected the proposal.
[/b]

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 419

This timeline paints a "somewhat" different picture:
http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline/

GMDavis · Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Posts: 30

foo wrote:

maybe you missed the "warped conception" part, the article is not criticizing regulation, but *warped kind of regulation*

I didnt miss it. I'm trying to figure out what the warped regulation was though. I do know that people always find ways to bend or work around the rules. Take for example the Savings and Loan scandel. There were no regulations against what they were doing because no one thought to make it illegal.

So what regulations am I missing?

Quote:

you have to agree that the US has been acting increasingly protectionist (e.g open skies), oh and the democrats are also to blame, not just dubya

I wouldnt say "increasingly." Its been like this for some time. There was a huge dust up in the 80's when the Japanese were buying all kinds of American companies and it happened agian in the 90's with the Saudis'. As far as protectionism goes, again, other nations do it. Wth Japan its beef and steel. Its other things in Europe (I seem to read mainly about tech) and with ohter nations it's other things. I think it is unfair to single the US for things that all nations do.

Quote:

maybe you should watch/read the news elsewhere as well and not jut in the states, try Europe
Europeans (their leaders included) are waiting for dubya to go home, and are hoping for an obama win
maybe then both parties will work on fixing their relations (which i hope they do because the US and Europe have a lot more in common than differences)

I know most Europeans prefer Obama. But I also know US?EU releations are much better than there were 5 years ago. I think my statements are valid and accurate

Quote:

a lot has been written about this, in the NYT and elsewhere
(e.g. the fact that FEMA was essentially run by cronies...)

Of that I have no doubt. But again, the ball was dropped at the local level. The Federal Government can only do what the local government will allow.

GMDavis · Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Posts: 30

P4man wrote:

This timeline paints a "somewhat" different picture:
http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline/

They can have a "somewhat" differnet picture all they want.

The fact is that Blanco droped the ball.

It is a documented fact that the Federal Gov asked to be put in charge. Its also a documented fact that Blanco turned them down.

The site you linked to seemed more interested in attacks (Rice going shopping) rather than citing the facts.

I am curious. As a Sec of State, what exacly was Rice suspposed to do? She deals with international affairs, not internal.

foo · Joined: 27 Jun 2007 Posts: 116

GMDavis wrote:

foo wrote:

maybe you missed the "warped conception" part, the article is not criticizing regulation, but *warped kind of regulation*

I didnt miss it. I'm trying to figure out what the warped regulation was though. I do know that people always find ways to bend or work around the rules. Take for example the Savings and Loan scandel. There were no regulations against what they were doing because no one thought to make it illegal.

So what regulations am I missing?

by "warped conception" the author means that there was no regulation

Quote:

you have to agree that the US has been acting increasingly protectionist (e.g open skies), oh and the democrats are also to blame, not just dubya

I wouldnt say "increasingly." Its been like this for some time. There was a huge dust up in the 80's when the Japanese were buying all kinds of American companies and it happened agian in the 90's with the Saudis'. As far as protectionism goes, again, other nations do it. Wth Japan its beef and steel. Its other things in Europe (I seem to read mainly about tech) and with ohter nations it's other things. I think it is unfair to single the US for things that all nations do.

absolutely, other nations are acting protectionist as well (wrongly if you ask me) e.g. the whole deal with some french (IIRC) steel company that some indian company wanted to buy

there is however one fundamental difference, the US is supposed to be the champion of open markets
heck, Europe also has social agenda, the russians and the chinese are slowly becoming capitalist countries, etc.

if the champion of free markets is acting protectionist, what can one expect from the rest?

Quote:

maybe you should watch/read the news elsewhere as well and not jut in the states, try Europe
Europeans (their leaders included) are waiting for dubya to go home, and are hoping for an obama win
maybe then both parties will work on fixing their relations (which i hope they do because the US and Europe have a lot more in common than differences)

I know most Europeans prefer Obama. But I also know US?EU releations are much better than there were 5 years ago. I think my statements are valid and accurate

let me try to explain it another way: if bush could get elected again, the relations would be getting steadily worse
the thinking in europe is: "look there is not much we can do about bush, lets just try to get along for his remaining time, and lets hope obama wins"

Quote:

a lot has been written about this, in the NYT and elsewhere
(e.g. the fact that FEMA was essentially run by cronies...)

Of that I have no doubt. But again, the ball was dropped at the local level. The Federal Government can only do what the local government will allow.

not true, the feds can certainly intervene if necessary and that was the case with katrina...