Rumsfeld steps down.

Who's next?

Well, if the Republicans were smart, Cheney would resign due to poor health and John McCain would be put in as V.P. That gives him two years to look like a president and two years for the GOP to make the country forget how unfit he was deemed as a presidential candidate in 2000 (and what they did to one of their own.) That would put McCain in the best postion to be the GOP presidential candidate in 2008. If they plan to run McCain, this exactly what they should do and as soon as possible.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Nov 8 2006, 03:06 PM) [snapback]345667[/snapback]</div>

I second that!!

"Jared for President"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prez1 @ Nov 8 2006, 04:51 PM) [snapback]345820[/snapback]</div>

I didn't know there was a 'hold harmless' clause attached to the receipt of this money. If that's true (and I'm not accusing you of an untruth, just a bit surprised at this news) then it's pretty clearcut, isn't it?

I've always been a bit uncomfortable with such an arrangement, and this doesn't help matters one bit.

I also recall calculations about how much future earning power individuals might have had, if they'd lived...this is so far beyond the scope of rational thought -- not to mention, the responsibility of our government -- that it boggles my mind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 8 2006, 05:02 PM) [snapback]345834[/snapback]</div>

Floods are covered under Federal Flood Insurance, which is supported by tax dollars and homeowner's premiums of people who live in a flood zone. Should I subsidize someone who insists on re-building their house in the same spot, having it wiped out again and again? I don't think so, but that's the way it is.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 8 2006, 05:38 PM) [snapback]345853[/snapback]</div>

Google "911 payments" and look at some of the articles, and you will see what the original intent was, and how it changed a bit over time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prez1 @ Nov 8 2006, 05:50 PM) [snapback]345861[/snapback]</div>

I recall this sort of thing being an issue when I was living in Southern Califonia...folks living in canyon country enjoyed these fab views, but their houses would always be damaged in fires and mudslides...why weren't their rates higher than mine, since my house was more sensibly located...?

 

You are forgetting declared states of emergency, that then receive federal aid.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prez1 @ Nov 8 2006, 05:50 PM) [snapback]345861[/snapback]</div>

Uh, no.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 8 2006, 12:47 PM) [snapback]345754[/snapback]</div>

I'm a'hagging! Oops! Just ran into the wall.......

 

So one of the Nixon pair is finally, sorta leaving. What does this mean considering the other Nixon pair is still there (and open to consolidating power), and is the new replacement anything more than a political appointee?

What happens to his underlings still at the Pentagon that generated much of the faulty intelligence that lead to the Iraq Incursion? I hope they go out with, and competents fill the vacuum.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 8 2006, 06:58 PM) [snapback]345899[/snapback]</div>

Here is a little something you may want to read. I think that if they can't meet their obligations without additional funds from us, the taxpayer, then we are all subsidizing them. Sorry it is so long, but you're the one doing the questioning. I actually had to cut off a few pages of it.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

U.S. Congress
Washington, DC 20515
May 31, 2006

Honorable Judd Gregg
Chairman
Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am pleased to respond to your questions about the financial condition of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) and its ability to meet its obligations to the Treasury and to its
policyholders. The NFIP’s current financial situation is unsustainable. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) lacks the financial resources to cover the
program’s costs and the authority to make changes that might ensure that future obligations
could be met. Specifically:

• FEMA estimates that the NFIP needs about $3 billion more to pay claims resulting
from the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Without legislation providing additional
budgetary resources, those claims cannot be paid in a timely fashion.
• Interest costs on the NFIP’s debt from the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes will total about
$1 billion a year. Even if FEMA increases the premiums charged for flood insurance
by the maximum percentage allowed by law, premium income in the next several
years is unlikely to cover claims, debt service, and other costs of the program.
• The NFIP has operated on an actuarially unsound basis, with many property owners
paying premiums that do not account for the full risk of insuring their properties.
Thus, over the long term, premium income will be insufficient to cover the program’s
costs. If this policy of subsidizing certain types of properties continues, it can be
expected to lead to a shortfall of about $1.3 billion a year over the long term for
currently insured properties.
At the current premium rates charged for flood insurance, can the program continue
to meet its obligations without its debt to the Treasury being forgiven or without
perpetual increases in its borrowing authority?

It is very unlikely that the NFIP will be able to make timely payments on policyholders’
claims in 2007 and in future years without a change in law. The program’s current and future
obligations for policyholder claims, operating expenses, and debt service are likely to far
exceed its income from premiums.

The NFIP incurred liabilities estimated to total at least $23 billion as the result of the 2005
Gulf Coast hurricanes. Subsequently, the Congress authorized FEMA, which operates the
program, to borrow $20.8 billion from the Treasury to pay some of those claims. That
borrowing authority is not expected to be sufficient to cover all the outstanding claims.
FEMA estimates that an additional $3 billion in additional resources will be needed in late
2006 or early 2007 to cover the remaining claims from the 2005 hurricanes.

Even if $3 billion in additional borrowing authority was provided to FEMA to cover the
claims currently outstanding, the NFIP would probably not have sufficient funds in future
years to cover its claims, operating expenses, and interest on its borrowing. At current
premium rates and allowing for continued growth in the number of policies, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that premium income would average about
$2.5 billion per year over the next five years. But interest payments on FEMA’s debt to the
Treasury will amount to $600 million in 2006 and will grow to over $1 billion annually by
2007. Even if new claims and operating expenses were incurred at no more than the rates
typical of recent experience (excluding 2005), they would total between $2 billion and
$3 billion per year, bringing the NFIP’s average annual obligations to between $3 billion and
$4 billion over the next five years. Thus, at current rates, premium income would probably
be insufficient to cover the program’s costs, even if those costs were at the relatively low
levels experienced for most of the past decade.

Moreover, average annual losses over the long term are likely to be higher than those
incurred in most recent years. The program has about 4.9 million policies in force, with a
total exposure of nearly $900 billion. Under current law, about 1.2 million of those
policyholders pay premiums that do not cover the full risk of insuring their properties.1 CBO
estimates that this policy results in an actuarial imbalance in the NFIP of about $1.3 billion
a year. In other words, the program would need to collect an additional $1.3 billion a year
in premiums to have sufficient funds to pay expected claims over many years, excluding any
obligations for service on its current debt. Flood events and claims in any year can vary
from minor to catastrophic; an actuarial assessment of the cost of insurance considers the
probabilities of all possible events. With debt-service costs included, the program’s average
annual costs would be close to $5 billion, and the shortfall between premium income at
current rates and actuarial expectations of the program’s long-run obligations would exceed
$2 billion a year.
Sincerely,

Donald B. Marron
Acting Director

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 8 2006, 06:22 PM) [snapback]345843[/snapback]</div>

McCain/Powell in 2008!

Imagine a world where McCain had actually won the 2000 Rupublican nomination ...

A previous poster wished Bush had nominated Powell for Rummy's job. After what Bush/Cheney/Rummy did to Powell, I'm glad he didn't.

This is the third time that Rummy's offered his resignation (well, he offered the first two times, I think this time it was probably suggested to him), and finally Bush accepted it. I'm glad Rummy's complying with Bush's Faith-Based initiative: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

I wonder how the resignation is playing over in Iraq? Do they follow our politics or are they more concerned with dodging bombs after Bush brought al Qaeda into Iraq?

P.S. The captions on that photo with Rummy and Saddam were TOO MUCH! Absolutely hilarious!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Nov 8 2006, 10:31 PM) [snapback]346029[/snapback]</div>

I would have voted for him in 2000. After what he's done in the past year or two, I won't vote for him in '08 even if he's running against Barney.

 

Man a lot of you are CHUMPS!

Just like the man you claim to be a CHIMP!

Seriously, don't you get it???

It's OVER folks. Rumsfeld stepping down at THIS point, is like putting a condom on after sex... Funny, many of you see it as a victory, quite the contrary, from your standpoint, the damage has already been done, it no longer really matters... Celebrating Rumsfeld leaving at this point, is like re-celebrating your 16th birthday party or something...

BushCo. is ALREADY a success in my book:

pwn3d Afghanistan
pwn3d Iraq,
sent Saddam to the gallows,
terrorist body count grows every day

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Nov 8 2006, 11:32 PM) [snapback]346071[/snapback]</div>

Darn you, Mr. Squid; your ability to make the strange familiar and the familar strange never ceases to amaze me.

The "putting a condom on after sex" bit is (it pains me to admit) particularly effective.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Nov 9 2006, 12:32 AM) [snapback]346071[/snapback]</div>

You mean
F#$%ed up Afghanistan
F#$%ed up Iraq
Destroyed a secular government that was helping to keep "radical Muslims" in check
Innocent civilian body count grows every day

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Nov 8 2006, 11:32 PM) [snapback]346071[/snapback]</div>

Which is why the Taliban is back in power there.

Which is why it's a bloody civil war

Which the wouldn't have had to do if Reagan and friends didn't give him weapons and money AFTER he committed the crimes he was found guilty of.

Are you calling our troops in Iraq terrorists? More proof neocons hate the U.S. and all that it stands for.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Nov 9 2006, 06:30 AM) [snapback]346147[/snapback]</div>

Your third point a true point that the crazies seem to overlook.

Add a few more:
F'ed up our surplus.
F'ed the middle class (and didn't even kiss 'em first).
Allowed North Korea and Iran to proliferate nukes.

I will say it again: there have been six months of his presidency that I supported him, and that was the six months immediately following 9/11; not before that time frame, and certainly not after.

It's simply amazing to me that people like our friend there seem to only show allegiance because it gives him a sense of power...ya know...hanging out with the class bully (who was also the stupidest kid in class) because it gave him some weird sense of belonging. Forget having thoughts on impact, true results, and the future.

 

Agreed with all of the above, but...our many-tentacled friend is right...they already did what it was they wanted to do.

That's what's so crushing; now we're in 'damage control mode' because of failed policies and "well, at least I got what I want" thinking.

It's the 'I' part in all of this which is messing things up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Nov 8 2006, 08:32 PM) [snapback]346071[/snapback]</div>

As I understand it, it was the CIA under Tenet that 0wn3d Afghanistan. The Pentagon had neither the preplanning nor the training to do something like in such a short window.

Then CheneyRumsfield fscked it up by pulling troops and management for the Iraq Incursion. Then, the very smart and successful Tenet took the fall for the "intelligence failures" created by the CheneyRumsfield intelligence-inside machine when the Iraq Incursion was exposed to be just warped dreams.

Now, Afghanistan slid back into turmoil and Iraq is now a bog. Meantime, North Korea was busy jumping and waving around that they had everything Iraq was dreamt to have, but continued to be fully ignored.

I call this a very successful fsck up by CheneyRumsfield. If there was ever a time in history where two men were in the right place to do their things, it was now.