Is the inept response deliberate to motivate privatizing FEMA?

[wli]

Norquist's big goal is to privatize everything and turn the country into a fascist corporatocracy ruled by martial law and dissent stifled with the strategy of tension. When the tsunami happened with no warning, the US response was far better than this. If there is bungling here, it is deliberate. So what could possibly motivate such?

There are few other explanations as to why it's been bungled. So are they trying to discredit FEMA etc. in order to motivate its privatization.

Of course, we didn't really notice this, and we blame it all directly on Bush and the neocons as appropriate. But could it be the motive for deliberately bungling the disaster response and deliberately aggravating the disaster by slashing preparedness and mitigation programs?

[applegrove]

1. It is an attempt to diminish all government ability to help. That is the

plan. To change the thinking of Americans to people who don't trust their government and rely on corporations or christianity instead. Government help would just compete as a brand with these two - if they acted - which they didn't - but now they have had to.

I don't know why Bush sat there silent on the event and not helpful or precise in using the military's keen understanding of the cycle of violence that will erupt in such situations.

It was almost like he was waiting for more to happen. Dead air. A vacuum so things could play out as "boy wonder" wanted them to.

But it served some purpose. Not doing the proper thing in a national emergency.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Government is already in the privatized phase. That's why

public assistance failed. And, who church wants to be in the business of hunting down and shooting snipers?

Anyway, my views are in this thread I just hatched out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4573911

[newswolf56]

3. I think it is far worse than that:

Methodical application of the genocide-by-neglect policy evident in the Bush Administration's deliberate destruction of the social safety net. This is phase two: deliberate reduction of the poor (and therefore expenses for Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, general welfare etc.) by abandonment of the poor to die, whether in the flood itself, the immediate aftermath, or the epidemics that are bound to break out among the displaced persons the government refuses to evacuate from places like the Convention Center. Look at it this way: every dollar "saved" by the death of an impoverished person (whether in New Orleans or anywhere else) is another dollar for the oligarchy. It's called class warfare -- and its resumption in the most viciously Tyrannosauric form possible is the specific purpose for which the oligarchy groomed Bush for the presidency.

[Skidmore]

4. If it is, these people are so malevolent and evil the that they

are beneath contempt. Impeachment and imprisonment is too good for them.

[BQueen]

5. Made a similar observation on the NYT editorial thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x152486

>>>>But it's already a very costly game of catch-up. The situation might have been considerably less dire if all of Louisiana's and Mississippi's National Guard had been mobilized before the storm so they could organize, enforce and aid in the evacuation of vulnerable low-lying areas. Plans should have been drawn up for doing so, with sufficient trained forces available to carry them out.

It's too late for that now. But the hard lessons of this week must be learned and incorporated into the nation's plans for future emergencies, whether these come in the form of natural disasters or terrorist attacks. Every state must now update its plans for quick emergency responses and must be assured by the Pentagon that it will be able to keep enough National Guard soldiers on hand to carry out these plans on very short notice.<<<<<

Translation: Don't ever count on the Feds -- states, step in and make responsive FEMA-type plans for disasters and/or attacks at least loosely coordinated with surrounding states, with bigger plans on hand to give, wholesale, to the foundering Federal agency figurehead if something monumental happens. (Threaten said figurehead with whatever you have to in order to force them to DO THEIR FRIGGING JOB!)

It's maddening. Norquist's vision is coming true -- they have undermined the social contract to the point that the federal government is no longer functioning, and the states and private individuals are FORCED to act in the breach. This will then be used as *evidence* that those horrible programs were never "necessary" to begin with, even though the public outpouring was engendered by their own systemic/strategic failures.

It's like when your dad screwed up the laundry on purpose so your mom would never ask him to do it again...on a global fucking scale.

[punpirate]

6. M'self...

... I think it's part of plan that's been in place for several years. People call it incompetence, but I think the Bushies mean to make the government incapable of functioning properly. They want the people to be against the government, to be upset with the government--that way, they can justify cutting funding for those elements of government devoted to public assistance--thus accomplishing what Norquist and his ilk want.

Norquist has never been interested in privatizing government, but, rather, shrinking it (and, therefore, the taxes required to operate it), and getting people insane about government's lapses presumably will encourage that end.

I'm hoping that the people will not attack government, in general, as Bush and his cohorts wish. I hope they will attack his government and get rid of it. It's going to take some effort and some education for people to understand the difference.

But, in the large part, I agree with what you're saying--but I don't think privatization is the ultimate aim here (privatization being here defined as taxpayer-funded operations conducted by private organizations). It's to push government responsibilities onto private charities (which are largely ill-equipped to take them on). There may be a little government money toward that end at first, but the ultimate aim of Bush and his cronies is for government to no longer assume those responsibilities at all. Getting people pissed at the government is a step in that direction, they think.

Cheers.

[WePurrsevere]

7. Perhaps we should "privatize" Bush into a (buck) "private".

I wouldn't put anything past him at this point. It's all about his buddies and family members in the corporate world making more money off of the backs of the middle and lower class.