From what I understand from the story they are in fact doing so; consider that they are asking for aid, "to provide relief for the counties struck by the severe weather that has left local governments, charitable groups and evacuees "taking on the initial costs of the disasters," the senators' statement said."

FEMA ... Federal Emergency Mismanagement Agency ... A agency whose failures are of historic proportion .. demonstrating how horribly managed almost every agency in Washington is!

"Remember New Orleans" .. is their motto ... They should be disbanded ... and their leaders dropped at sea in a life raft with three days supply of rations, and no oars .... fifteen hundred miles at sea ..

Now They Don't Even Recognize What A Disaster Is! ...

Hey, people want a smaller government I hear & lower taxes. Well somethings just have to fall to the wayside in that case. I guess some people want it both ways. (This is sarcasm!).

Based on our review of all of the information available, it has been determined that the damage was not of such severity and magnitude as to be beyond the capabilities of the State, affected local governments, and voluntary agencies. Accordingly, we have determined that supplemental Federal assistance is not necessary

All of those who keep thinking that cutting Federal Programs is the answer to the economy, expect more of this.

Of course, now people are going to say that it's "Obama's fault" Only when they are comfy, in their houses it's also "Obama's fault" that other people are getting assistance, such as Medicaid and Medicare.

If you are voting for the Republicans, be ready to pay the consequences. Next is Medicaid. Your pal Paul Ryan will keep giving gifts to Big oil, -4 billion dollars in subsidies, while they have RECORD profits- while you, or any of your relatives will have to declare bankruptcy if you need a bypass when you are old. Or HELP is your home gets blown by a hurricane!

These cuts are part of the "deal" that the Republicans negotiated. As Grr already mentioned it: YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!

You are so right; these organizations don't know their asses from first base. How dare they make that declaration!!!!!!!!!!! They prove over and over they haven't two brain cells to rub together. How much more proof do they need that these people desperately need help? Hopefully, Obama will ride over them rough shod and force them to do the right thing.

Once again, Obama follows the Republican lead.

You people need to go back to grammar school and relearn reading comprehension...FEMA didn't say it wasn't a disaster area, they said it's not beyond the capability of local government and charity to foot the bill for the disaster. It's obvious that FEMA feels the State of Illinois and the charities working, there, have more than enough money to be able to pay for the recovery without using federal funds. THAT'S what FEMA's refusal to declare a federal disaster really means!!

@AngieS

It's obvious that FEMA feels the State of Illinois and the charities working, there, have more than enough money to be able to pay for the recovery without using federal funds. THAT'S what FEMA's refusal to declare a federal disaster really means!!

Fortunately FEMA still has plenty of funds available for the purchase of red tape and the salaries of bureaucrats.

Cut the size of government, FEMA would be a good place to start. Illinois would be better off keeping their money in their pocket rather than sending it off to the Feds with the hope they'll get a pittance back when they need it.

Well, that's what you get, or not, when you vote for the wrong folks.

No no, say it ain't so. Good democrats all and the presidents home turf, how can it be?

Click, ah wait a minute, it is election year and illinois will vote democrat anyway. Oh yes, very politically correct. Brilliant move.

Maybe FEMA does not want to go to congress and say... Sorry, we blew the billions you gave us for the years budget on something else we did not disclose again.... So, now that there is a real emergency we have no money... Thats what they always do.... Every single time... Maybe this time they know asking for more money when they should have funds would be the final nail in their coffin... The "People" are finaly starting to pay attention to where all our tax dollars are going.. End this group of corrupt thugs today... They have never helped anyone... Let congress decide to help in disasters without FEMA's corruption and waiste.. Ron Paul 2012

IRESPOND-2315268

you may notice everyone involved is a democrat. the head of FEMA, tax hiking governor,and big spender

durbin. in the real world a state like illinois with a large population must pay more that states with less

population. Just make sure you whine to "native son" OBAMA for more free money

illinois will vote democrat anyway. Oh yes, very politically correct. Brilliant move.

Your cynicism is breathtaking, as is your willingness to surrender to self-delusion.

Your hate for Obama consumes you, Padawan.

SEAN 336944

your answer to ron paul .

let's see a medical doctor turned politician who truly does not understand economics

and forgets history as to "panics" of the 1800'S.

Hey fred, did I say something untrue? Is illinois not going to vote for the democratic ticket? Was it not a good political move?

You can believe me when I say that hatred is far to strong an emotion to waste on someone that I don't even know.

Its amazing, when a disaster occurs overseas the federal government can't send out massive amounts of aid fast enough. Meanwhile the taxpaying Americans who make that aid possible are left to fend for themselves. Just another example of big government throwing the little people under the bus.

@Sean-336944

Because Ron Paul has been fighting against the corrupt establishment in Congress for decades. Look at how hard the neocons and liberals have tried to find solid dirt on his political career. They've come up with zip, nada.

@NYC_TEXAN-4146170

Please, like those mainsteam politicians who only specialize in telling the people what they want to hear know about economics. Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble burst 5 years before it happened. Did you know that? Dobutful. You're only regurgitating the propaganda that's been fed to you.

For the record, Durbin only carried 2 IL counties. Cook County being one of them. The rest of the counties voted REP! However Cook County's dense population (of over 500,000 votes) was enough for Durbin to win the popular vote thus giving him the election!

As far as IL being able to "take care of and afford" The state is 2nd in line as the most in debt state in the nation! Chicago, Cook County being the major vampire of tax revenue!!!

IL, has the record of having the most Governors serving prison time. Governors that had Chicago roots as did our current President... just sayin!

Conclusion... if it doesn't pertain to Chicago (Cook County) then you are S.O.L. if you live in IL!!!!
If a wind blew over a sign in Cook County, you can bet FEMA, Durbin, and Obama would be there with bells on and serving free soup to everyone!

irespond--now people are going to say that it's "Obama's fault

obama did blame new orleans on bush

just keep rebuilding iraq instead

Unfortunately, states not getting any help from FEMA, is exactly what Ron Paul wanted.

@Sean-336944

Hey, look; all of a sudden the Cons want Big Government.

Con's? Illinois is about as blue as they come. Do you have any clue what you're talking about or do you just spout the same nonsense over and over again?

Hey fred, did I say something untrue?

Of course you did. That the denial was politically motivated. That's simply hogwash. Do you have any evidence, or are you simply guessing?

hatred is far to strong an emotion to waste on someone that I don't even know.

One would think so, but you seem far too willing to believe the worst. If that's not hatred, you fooled me. I mean really, why would you NOT give money to those you want to vote for you?! It's simply ludicrous, especially when given conservative's willingness to believe Obama could care less about debt. Why wouldn't you deny a RED state, since that state won't vote for you anyway?

You're making an uneducated guess, and basing it on your own fears and hatred. Deny it all you like, the evidence is in front of us all.

Ummm, when did Dick Durbin become a Tea Partier? Just wondering, because the last time I checked, Illinois was a "blue state", yet I continue to see where people are trotting out the Republicans and Tea Partiers as wanting money spent there.

Sorry hummbird, that wasn't meant for you. I must have clicked on the wrong "reply".

If you're going to attack someone directly about their post you might want to check your spelling. I wouldn't say giving a town that was pretty much destroyed (not Harrisburg) is far from "handing out" money.

Isn't it always like this. People complain that their taxes are too high and they want smaller government. But as soon as something happens where help is needed, then they look to the government. Can't have it both ways!

What happened to self responsibility? Everyone complains that government is too big. While I sympathize with the affected residents, I don't believe this disaster needs federal funds. It was 7 deaths and only affected 6 counties. Surely the state has the resources to deal with this. If their disaster planning relies on federal funds, they should seek a new governor.

jpsholly......wilbur314264 is right, disaster hits you and your area, you will go crying to FEMA and MY tax dollars will BAIL YOU OUT. Can not have it both ways.

Yes, it's our tax dollars that fund these agencies but it seems that small government proponents only realize the worth of these agencies when they are in need of their assistance and the rest of the time they want them to be done away with or leave them underfunded as for nation building and a defense budget that is way out of line those seem to be expenses the right has championed while they were in charge and Mr. Bush decided to give Iraq a face lift in the name of finding imaginary WMD's.

Why is it that the states scream about states rights until it's time for them to do right by their citizens during a disaster. The states step up FIRST. If they can't handle it, FEMA comes in.

@Wilbur, Old Yeller, kdc, Bob, Ped, and others who think they've scored a huge "gotcha" against conservatives, Tea Partiers, and so-called states' righters:

Get a clue. National defense and domestic preparedness, to include disaster response, are core functions of government. Arts funding, National Public Radio, food stamps, meth clinics, and free college educations + all-you-can-eat contraception for kids who can't keep their frackin' clothes on are not core functions of government.

Besides which, where does the federal government get its revenue? That's right, from the states. So under our present, sorry-a55, robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul system, if you're Illinois you've got no choice but to try to reclaim as much of your own taxpayers' dollars you can when you've taken a hit.

States collect taxes for their own function not to cover the federal revenue. Ever hear of the IRS? They collect federal taxes for the federal government. Congress, with the help of the Republicans, cut funding for FEMA several months ago. This is the results of these cuts.

Vote Republican---screw yourself. The ones to blame are the people that voted these idiots in office in 2010.

Sounds like Rick Perry, I hate you but give me money.

I have to wonder if this is just the beginning of more denials for aid in the future. While I sadly can't recall all natural disasters last year, I was part of the flooding in the Northeast that hit in September. What Irene didn't wipe out in her travels through, Lee took care of and it was pretty widespread through states. Also in 2011 were Joplin and Tuscaloosa tornadoes. Maybe FEMA is just maxed to the hilt? Or realizes that these disasters are becoming more frequent? That could be part of the reason behind the denial for Illinois. It bites and it's not right IMO that they will not get the help they need when this disaster was no fault of their own.

Southern Illinois doesn't have much in the way of resources as it is. These people need this desperately. Screw Obama for not looking out for the state that was stupid enough to help put him where he is today. So if this is the result of Republican funding cuts how do you explain the fact that Kentucky and Indiana received FEMA money due to the tornadoes?

There's plenty of blame to go around. The democrats were just as guilty before the republicans came into office. They were in full power when Obama was elected and couldn't do anything either. Both parties are crap and should be voted out of the White house and our government.

I hope when areas rebuilds, there is consideration for design in both building and land use that takes in to consideration these weather events that occur.

Please watch : cool it

and youtube

Masanobu Fukuoka's Natural Farming, One Straw Revolution.
and there is many proven designs in architecture that would minimize area damage in both building and city function.

prayers to those affected

Aside from you people complaining about this and that...These people should recieve Aid regardless. These are our countrymen. While politics may deem who may live or die, We as the citizen should work together and take care of one another in order to build a better future. Unethical to not help people when they need help.

Quiet Professional,

What you're missing is that most of the voting base of the Democrats don't pay taxes. More than half receives more in benefits than they pay. It's a statistical certainty since roughly half of the country pays the bills for the other half. And before you liberals get your panties in a bunch I'm not just talking about poor people. Immelt (as GE) and Buffet (as Berkshire Hathaway) are both on this list. Buffet alone owes enough in back taxes to pay for most of this disaster. Currently he owes roughly a billion. Now the liberals can get all wound up and collapse this post, proving it's true.

To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.

Teddy Roosevelt

Griff999 So if this is the result of Republican funding cuts how do you explain the fact that Kentucky and Indiana received FEMA money due to the tornadoes?

I was wondering the same thing. I wish we could all just pull together and help each other without the government handling the $$$.

Congress (Republicans) cut funding to FEMA. So where do you expect the money to come from? With reduced funding, the level of disaster needed to get funded just went up. Too bad that Illinois did not make the cut. How can you blame Obama when he fought against this? Republicans have been playing this 'starve the beast' strategy for many years, running wars without paying for them, running up a huge deficit. So if you want the federal government to help when major disasters strike, stop voting for Republicans.

As a country, we need to decide what the role of the federal government should be. Republicans seem to think it should be only national defense, and lots of it. They seem to think everything else should be a states' right issue. So if a state decides that brown kids should not get an education, the state can choose to not fund their education. Santorum says even states should not fund education. If you think that all children should have an equal opportunity for a basic education, then it needs to be handled by the federal government. These are the kinds of choices we need to make in November, and just live with the dysfunctional mess we have now until then.

Republicans and Democrats both suck. We have a flawed system.....Everyone in Washington is taking cash for their votes.....therefore everyone on Capital Hill is corrupt.

I can only say....

STATES RIGHTS, STATES RIGHTS , and PICK YOUR SELF UP WITH YOUR BOOTSTRAP, voting Teapublican has consequences as noted above. P.S. the idiots who respond that we pay the federal Govt our taxes, well stop taking out more than you pay in and maybe then you might get a little back.... jeeezzzz you red states constantly complaining about federal govt broke but you are welfare states for the rest of us taxpayers, Heres an idea how about raise your state tax up a little bit and quit welfaring off us other blue states

What you're missing is that most of the voting base of the Democrats don't pay taxes. More than half receives more in benefits than they pay

How do you know this? This is the eternal BS that the GOP is always indoctrinating into people: The "liberals"are the "leeches"of the system, and the Republicans are the ones who pay all the taxes.

If you would take the time to check your facts, instead of listening all the time to Rush Limbaugh, you would see that regardless if you are a Democrat or a Republican the IRS does not give a F*****, and coming April, if you do not pay taxes, you go to Jail.

Why can't you people add two plus two? They do not ask you at the welfare office if you are a Republican or a Democrat when you apply for food stamps. They ask you for your FINANCIAL RECORDS to see if you qualify.

And many "Conservative, good christian"voters are receiving food stamps, and they think that is GOD directly giving that help. The Federal Government is just CRAP to them.

America the STUPID

This is Obama's Katrina, always will be excuses and blame , never Democrats will take responsibility for their acts. Gas hike is not Obama's fault, Fast and furious border patrol dead is not Holder's fault, slow recovery pace is not Obama's fault, increase of insurance premium is not Obama's fault, 15 trillions Dollars in debt is not Obama fault. If Obama lose in November will be Romney's fault.

First, I don't listen to Rush. Or Hannity. Or any other person on the radio. My personal choice is modern rock but hey, to each his own. Obviously my primary news outlet is this one because I work for a living and attend school full time and I don't have time for more than one. I read here because I am convinced that I need to listen to the people I disagree with the most so that I don't just hear what I want to hear.

Second, almost all smaller government folks say that there are other reasons the government exists besides national defense and disaster prevention/response is one of those.

Third, the IRS does seem to care about party affiliation because the head of the Treasury is a convicted tax cheat and is still in charge of the hen-house.

Lastly, try this link. Scroll to the bottom for income levels. People making less than 50k per year vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Since this is where most of the checks from the government go, it's pretty easy to see the correllation. Besides, don't you Libs hate rich people? Don't you accuse them of being Republicans (like it's a bad thing)? The flip side of your argument is that most poor people are Democrats (shown by the research in the link) which means that that's where the bulk of Welfare goes.

Now, take your ideological rhetoric elsewhere or back it up with facts.

Irespond: The post about Democrats not paying taxes is just as you pointed out, another "Fake" News talking point and of course a complete lie. Conservatives don't ever have facts, just the fat drug addicts talking points and the the chicken sh....iiiitttt Sean Hannity's talking points. They wouldn't know a fact or a truth if it walked up and slapped them in their little head that encases their small, little ignorant minds.

Third, the IRS does seem to care about party affiliation because the head of the Treasury is a convicted tax cheat and is still in charge of the hen-house

That statement just made all of your other arguments go to the toilet -and you know it-

Now, take your ideological rhetoric elsewhere or back it up with facts.

The IRS may be interested in you....I should forward your e-mail to them.

@JimP1969 Yeah, no need to get any panties in a bunch as your post is a load of crap! You keep trying to sell those same debunked talking points about half the Democratic base not paying taxes or receiving more in aid than they pay etc. etc. Unfortunately for you, the FACTS don't back you up. First of all, the red states receive more in funding from the fed than they pay in by a WIDE margin, second, there is only about a percentage of 9% of Americans who don't pay ANY taxes. While 47% of Americans "technically" don't pay income taxes it is simply because they pay it through payroll taxes which are not included in the delusional math of the right wing. Sorry but you should stop listening to idiots and do your own research before you shoot your mouth off in public. Oh and by the way, the Teddy Roosevelt quote is a complete joke! The meaning of conservative and liberal today has NOTHING to do with the usage back in his day. The fact is, they BOTH lie and the difference is that liberals don't try to use religion and pseudo morality to con their lemmings.

If it was Chicago, FEMA would be all over it. Since it is in the more conservative part of the state, they are balking. This won't help BHO in his adopted "home" state.

@Ol Yellow Dog

Isn't it always like this. People complain that their taxes are too high and they want smaller government. But as soon as something happens where help is needed, then they look to the government. Can't have it both ways!

Huh? You think that makes sense? Or just can't wait to bitch about the same ol' thing over and over again like a broken record?

Yes we want smaller government but, since you've somehow failed to notice, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT YET! If the government is going to take our money to fund bs agencies like FEMA of course people are going to ask for that money back when they need it, duh. Currently there is still only ONE WAY, got to play the game using the rules provided. Once the rules change you'll be able to legitimately bitch and whine to your hearts content, until then, please try to get a clue.

btw, since you've somehow failed to notice this also I'll fill you in, Illinois is about as liberal as they come. I don't hear too many liberals asking for a smaller government so who exactly were you whining about anyway?

IRESPOND-2315268,

OK, I looked it up (something you guys will never do) and you're right. He did cheat but he wasn't convicted. But then again, we know how the courts look at high ranking Democrats. Something about a Kennedy? Maybe you should look it up. But I guess a lack of a conviction in the eyes of the Left equals innocence. It did for Clinton, anyway.

Anyway, click the link in my post. You'll see that the research has been done. The majority of the taxes in this country come from people that make more than 50k per year. Those people predominantly vote Republican. Since there are more Democrats in this country than Republicans, the math is clear. You won't admit it because that's a failing of the Left. They never admit wrongdoing even when caught with their you-know-what in the intern.

@Christian, have you ever considered that it might be possible that even in a Red state there are Democrats? Look at the link in my previous post. I dare you. Bet you won't. You'll say you did, but I still bet you won't. Idealogues don't care about facts, only about appearances. Teddy got it right.

To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.

Teddy Roosevelt

Among Democrats, it's not just Warren Buffett who won't pay his taxes (or George Soros, who shelters his billions off-shore, and in foundations). It's hard enough to get Democrats to pay taxes at all, just look at the Obama appointed cabinet and the scores of people who "forgot" about paying taxes. Charlie Rangel didn't even pay what he owed, much less any extra.

How exactly was this decision political in nature? It is a decision made by an apolitical government agency based on criteria that have been in place long before the current administration. Whether you agree with the decision or not to say it is political is simply bereft of reason.

Actually, I was referring to John's comment (the first - mine was actually the third or fourth) before it was collapsed. I was not referring to the decision, as I do not know how they arrived at that conclusion.

No different than people blaming Bush for every single thing while he was in office. Or doesn't it work both ways for some reason?

Yes, pzphiml, it does work both ways - every day - every single article. The democrats blame Bush whether he had a hand in it or not, and the republicans blame Obama the same way. We stopped being Americans somewhere along the line and became whatever our political affiliation or viewpoint happens to be.

My point was: this article had nothing to do with politics, but the first comment brought politics into it.

@Annie, aha, that makes sense then. As I have been reading your other comments this one (the original) made less and less sense to me so glad to see that it was my misunderstanding what you were responding to.

@pzphiml Sadly it does work both ways, though I would have made the same comment to someone blaming President Bush for something he had no control over. I agreed with almost nothing Bush stood for, however, I am also a student of Politics and the US Government and I do my best to actually understand the cause of things rather than laying the blame at the figurehead of the party I disagree with. If we could get more people to actually do this I am sure the political atmosphere in this country would be much better.

In my opinion the most dangerous thing in our country today is not the far right or the far left, it is not one extremist party or another. It is the apathetic nature of our society that has made most people not willing to actually dig beneath the surface; willing to take talking points from their news source of choice - be it Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc - and unwilling to challenge their own viewpoints by listening to those who disagree and researching the actual facts rather than simply accepting what they are told.

Two great examples of this, one from the left and one from the right. During the Bush administration those on the left were vehemently against the Patriot Act (as was I just as a disclaimer) though most of them I would speak with about it couldn't tell you what was in it beyond the talking points. Now, during the Obama administration, those on the right are vehemently against the health care reform, but most I talk to couldn't actually tell you what is in it beyond the talking points. So yes it does happen on both sides, but that doesn't make it any better.

Red as in republican in presidential and governor races? Yes. There is only three or sometimes four (St. Clair, East St. Louis) that vote dem. Two are in Chicago the other is Alexander county at the southern tip of Illinois (Cairo). Lately those counties have controlled the rest of the state. Probaly due to the fact people who work for living have had to leave since Illinois in its infinite wisdom and desire to live and die to support Chicago ran business out by doubling the corporate tax rate and quadrupling the personal state income tax. But hey what do I know I just live in this liberal controlled (by three counties) state that is soon to go insolvent with its great left wing kensian inspired policies! ALL HAIL THE GREAT GOD CHICAGO!!

Funny Whitney, Obama "has nothing to do with this decision", but when Katrina hit, it was all Bush's fault how FEMA reacted!!! It is hilarious to see the blatant double standards between this president and the previous one. Shame on ya'll!!!!!

You make a good point pandy. :) Sorry it will probably get collapsed.

No, it wasn't directly Bush's fault for how FEMA reacted, but it WAS his indirectly for putting a complete idiot in charge of that department. So if you don't agree with the decision by FEMA you could say the same thing about Obama. But if you think this is more Obama's responsibility than the Congressional Republicans who voted down FEMA funding, then you are either ignorant or stupid.

All the Democrat governor of La and Mayor of New Orleans had to do was ask for Fed assistance and the military would have been in New Orleans overnight ! It is against the constitution for fed troops to enter a state with out being asked by the governor of said state !

Anybody notice Nagin is being investigated for fraud and corruption ? In New Orleans , impossible !

I don't quite get why you painted me with a "Y'all". First of all, I didn't mention Katrina. I don't think FEMA handled it well. It wasn't Bush in charge. The FEMA director, in my opinion, shouldn't have gotten the accolades he did afterwards nor should this one. I also recognize the job of FEMA director is probably a very difficult one which is why only the most qualified should be there. I don't think Obama has made all the right choices nor do I think Bush did. So before you assume you know who I am and what I think I only ask that you show the courtesy we should all show each other and ask.

Funny Whitney, Obama "has nothing to do with this decision", but when Katrina hit, it was all Bush's fault how FEMA reacted!

Who was director of FEMA when Katrina hit? Oh, yeah... a friend of Dubyas who was a horse trainer. He had no idea what to do when disaster struck.

Why not ask the state what funds they have set aside for emergencies? Should the Federal government step up every-time a person is killed? I think the decision was a just one. Funding should be reserved for true disasters that states cannot handle alone.

My understanding of the process is somewhat limited, however, from what I do understand they do not look at the death toll to determine if federal assistance is necessary, they look at the overall financial cost to determine if the state and local government should be able to handle it. That may sound callous, but keep in mind that no amount of federal assistance will bring back those that died, all they can do is help with the rebuilding and relief efforts. In this case what FEMA is saying is that the total financial cost of the storms is not so high that the state and local governments shouldn't be able to handle it under FEMA guidelines. Keep in mind also that this is not saying that the government will not help at all, it is just determining which government agency will pay the bill; federal, state, or local. I am not saying it is right or wrong, just how I understand the process to work.

One additional comment, in response to those in the comments trying to attribute this decision to President Obama or some political motivation. The President does not have any say in this decision. He may be able to direct FEMA to change the decision (I'm not sure honestly) however the initial decision is made by FEMA personnel based on FEMA guidelines which are purely apolitical. I realize that some peoples hatred for Pres. Obama knows no bounds, but at least get your facts somewhat straight.

Good point regarding the budget, add to it the fact that Illinois, while badly hit, was one of the lesser hit states by the recent storms and the reason for their decision makes more and more sense. That is not too say that I agree, or disagree for that matter. I think IL is doing the right thing in appealing and I trust that the experts whose job it is to determine if the federal funds are necessary will make the right decision.

I should also state that I support fully funding FEMA and other government agencies intended to help the people of this country in times of need and have absolutely no problem paying the taxes that come with it. The fact is that while paying up on tax day always hurts just a bit (I am a 1099 employee so I pay quarterly) I get a lot of benefit out of those taxes - roads, schools, police, fire departments, a military, programs to help those most in need, FEMA, the FAA, the FDA, I could go on and on - so I see no reason to complain.

Unfortunately, according to the Illinois budget, they're approximately $280 billion dollars in debt.

Illinois owed $37.9 billion more than all of its assets combined, including cash, investments and property, as of July 1, 2010, according to a recent state audit. ^[6] Illinois has a total state debt of approximately $280,595,828,000, when calculated by adding the total of outstanding official debt, pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) liabilities, Unemployment Trust Fund loans, and the budget gap. ^[7]

A new report on the state of Illinois' economy compiled for Sen. Mark Kirk says dividing state, city and county debt for every family in Chicago, the average family owes $78,000.

For every family in Chicago...that sums it up...alot...thanks for informing me, a resident of SOUTHERN ILLINOIS that my duty is to live and to die and to contribute to the greater good of CHICAGO. THANKS CHICAGO THANKS ALOT!

And the state will continue to be a sure bet for Democrat politicians although 1 of the last 4 Illinois governors sent to prison was a Republican !

Hey, 3 out of 4 is a good showing !

Well said!

There is something wrong.... Illinois holding out it's hand expecting to be reimbursed for services they provide to their own citizens. I don't see you questioning the state's emergency planning and allocation of resources.... Had this been a hurricane or storm that affected a large swath of Illinois, then yes, Federal aid would be more forthcoming. We are talking about 6 counties and 7 deaths. Insurance will cover most of the damage, and the state tax payers can expect Illinois to cover services, as that is why they tax their residents.

No one is saying we shouldn't help our own people what the agency is charged with is determining whether the scope of the disaster reaches the level that warrants federal aid as opposed to letting the local and state agencies incur the cost either way the money has to come out of someone's pocket.

Call and write your congressional cadre and tell them to fully fund FEMA and cancel some of the foreign aid to pay for it. Complaining here and blaming the president will just embolden congress and keep them ripping you off. Talk to congress!!

Get used to it...GLOBAL WARMING is real, and more of this disasters are going to keep happening. FEMA will never have enough money to cover all the climate mess coming to us. This is the beginning.

However, go ahead and start bringing those asinine comments that Global warming is a hoax, and driving Hummers and drilling for oil does not have anything to do with it.

Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bauchman, Rick Santorum and any those Dumb a****s Republicans that keep telling you that Global Warming is a hoax, are WRONG.

FEma will not be there for everybody. Get ready to fend for yourself. All those powerful asinine GOPS have 2 or 4 mansions to go in an emergency, thanks to the money that you send them for their political campaigns.

Still Republican? I thought so...

I admittedly could be wrong on this, but I believe that even today a large amount of "disaster relief" is done through small loans. Further, I know for fact that insurance companies are still expected to cover a large amount of the damage to private properties and home owners are expected to have insurance for that purpose. The disaster relief is typically to cover the gap between what insurance can cover and the actual damage cost (especially in large disasters where the insurance companies simply don't have enough money to pay all of the claims) and also to take care of public resources that need rebuilt - schools, water plants, government buildings, etc - not to simply "bail people out".

Bill,

The gap between what insurance can cover and the actual damage? I thought that was called the "deductible." People should bear this in mind when they purchase their policy and try to have that money tucked away.

Your right, they should, but as best said by FDR, "when your neighbors house is on fire you don't haggle over the cost of the water hose". There are times when you simply accept that regardless of the judgement of the person in need you simply help them.

Also, that gap is what would be covered by loans as opposed to grants and would be expected to be paid back. The large gap I was talking about, however, is not on an individual property, but in a community at large. My memory isn't totally clear but I seem too recall that after the last hurricane in FL a lot of insurance companies were unable to pay all of the claims, even when people had proper coverage, because there was simply too much damage to cover. It is instances like that that you might see grants as opposed to loans, and even then I would expect that the government would likely go after the insurance companies after covering the initial cost.

Well Bill, I sure hope you're correct about the government going after the insurance companies. I just keep thinking about Katrina where the people were not prepared at all, would not leave and then whined because FEMA took too long to save their behinds. Then they were given trailers that I will admit were not the Ritz Carlton but they were supposed to be temporary housing. Then the people whined because they wanted something better than those trailers.

I don't mind giving people a leg up but I don't want to be their crutch forever.

The problem is one that could rectified if our Republican Government would do their duties. The insurance companies here in Florida are allowed to send huge sums of their profits out of Florida to their home companies, which they use for huge benefit and bonuses. Then, they want to welch on providing the coverage the good citizens of Florida has paid for. We have not had a major hurricaine in Florida for five years. Yet, each year, insurance companies request a 30 - 50% increase to insurance rates, so they can cover hurricane damage. In addition, we have a state sponsored insurance to cover those areas that the private insurance industry refuse to cover. These are the mostly the beach nicks, some with multimillion dollar homes and they pay little to no insurance while the majority of the people pay ungodly fees. Further, the government make the private insurance companies collect fees from policy holders to pay for the shortfalls in the government's sponsored insurance. But, the republican government here, like the republicans in congress stick out their chest's and proclaim that they did not raise taxes. I'm left wondering why anyone would vote for these people, knowing they are voting against their own interest. Still wondering!!

Chris, the states made these cuts in services and aid because the Bush administration cut aid to states to pay for Iraq and the GOP House have blocked any attempt to increase aid to states and FEMA. That is why Eric Cantor's district was denied aid for the earthquake and flood damage due to Hurricane Irene! Coincidentally, it was Cantor that led to charge to block increasing FEMA's budget and his constituents are NOT happy with his. His approval rating stands at 39% last time I checked! Lastly, FEMA doesnt rebuild private homes UNLESS there is no insurance coverage and even then, any aid is a low interest loan not a grant!

You show a remarkable lack of understanding of the effects of the GOP's decisions and their creating this deficit/debt crisis to begin with. Sooner or later, these things have consequences and we're seeing them now! And I BET Bush was banking on this whole thing collapsing AFTER he left office. His bad luck.

Tom

Maybe you should heap your contempt on the Democrats and Obama.

House Republicans tucked $1 billion in additional funding for this year into a spending measure that also includes $2.65 billion in disaster-relief funding for fiscal 2012. The figure exceeds the $1.8 billion that President Obama requested for the next fiscal year, a move congressional Republicans said they took to avoid having to come up with more emergency dollars later.

Notice that the HOUSE REPUBLICANS had asked more money for FEMA than the President asked for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-irene-fema-facing-a-disaster-of-its-own--funding/2011/08/29/gIQAxgzMoJ_story_1.html

Hey hey hey slodon person, how dare you bring the truth out when Bush is still alive to blame everything on. You cut that out right now mister. We have pc standards here and the truth isnt one of them damnit.

Slodon,

You only quoted the parts that supported the point you tried to make. You glossed over the part where congress wanted to shift monies around, because the had not fully funded FEMA.

"Does it really make sense to pay response and reconstruction cost for past disasters by reducing our capacity to prepare for or respond to future disasters?" Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) asked in a July letter critical of cuts the House made to replenish the disaster fund. Check this: "Recovery from hurricane damage on the East Cost must not come at the expense of Missouri's rebuilding efforts," Sen Roy Blunt (R-MO) said in a Monday statement.

The republican led house of congress were using some rotten shicity to try and align FEMA funds, as not fully fund them. The proof is in your pudding!!

And what was attached to that funding? See everyone THINKS that they know what is going on, but if you remember your civics and us government classes ( you do remember those right?), then you know that NOTHING is sent as a stand alone. There is always some kind of string attached. So while it may be true that they put more into it than the POTUS asked for, what else was in that funding. What were they asking for the POTUS to do that he simply refused to sell the American public out on?

Been alive for quite some time and yes I am very cynical of POLITICIANS OF BOTH STRIPES!!

hey slodon........ you forgot to post the next paragraph that follows YOUR quote in YOUR link:

But in doing so, Republicans shifted money from a program that lends money to
auto manufacturers to build more energy-efficient cars and cut dollars from
other FEMA programs. Both ideas are unacceptable to Senate Democrats.

( I love it when I can bust the righties with their own links! LOL)

PS..... the bottom line is that because if the GOP political trickery, FEMA denied disaster aid to Eric Cantor's district for the earthquake and flooding from Hurricane Irene. Cantor led the charge for this GOP baloney. The result is taht his constituents are PISSED at him, his approval rating plunged to 39% and he is in serious danger of losing his seat in Nov.

Funny how all these political BS tricks seem to be backfiring on the GOP congresscritters.

What kind of ridiculous argument is this? FEMA denied Illinois disaster relief. Illinois has nothing to do with the TEA party. You clearly have an unhealthy obsession with the TEA party which is a key indicator of being clinically deranged.

This comment is absolutely worthless and designed merely to be inflammatory.

Why yes cameron ford, and since the state of Illinois is completely broke, has no money and is soon to be insolvent, the churches are providing alot of the aid here. But thanks alot for pointing it out, apreciate it! I apologize if churches helping may upset your politicaly correct sensibilities though. But hey feel free to donate some of your vast fortune to help if it will ease your consciouness any. No? Ok, thanks alot then, your excused

Well if the churches got it covered, they why bother with FEMA???? Just asking?

Because we pay federal tax money just like..well 47% of us do, anyway we are as entitled to it as anyone else. Sorry it wasnt a major city for us all to wet are pants over. Sorry it was a conservative area that people pulled together without waiting on a hand out, and how dare us to ask for one. What was we thinking, good point.

Whatever happened to state sovereignty and responsibilities to their own citizens? The feds should step in only if the state can't. This was hardly a large disaster. The affected residents should be angry at state officials, not federal ones....

Ray - That sounds great, Now don't tell me what test my kid has to pass to graduate, don't tell me that I have to drive 55mph, don't tell me that I have to buy health insurance, etc, etc, etc.

I would love to be self sufficient. quit picking my pocket so that I can't afford to be.

Well, given that the speed limit is a state requirement, not a federal one (I believe there may have been a federal one at one point due to gas prices, however the fact that states like CA have a 65 mph speed limit indicates that there no longer is), you might want to remove that one from your list. That said, I do understand the point your are trying to make, though I must disagree.

The fact is that ensuring that your child has the basic knowledge needed to graduate and that you have insurance are issues that effect the nation as a whole, and therefore, it makes sense for the federal government to set regulations. If your child receives a H.S. Diploma in NY (just picking a state at random) and then moves to CA it is just as valid in CA. If the educational standards of NY are not as high your child may not have the proper education to be able to succeed in a job or university in CA, however, the employer/school would have no way of knowing that. After a while of this occurring I am sure you would eventually have states refusing to hire or admit people from other states to prevent issues. That of course would cause all sorts of issues. It, therefore, makes sense that there are specific expectations of what a school in any state is required to teach a child before they can be considered to have graduated from a certain level (be it grade school, middle school, or high school). The only way to ensure this is being done is through testing, thus my point that it makes sense for the fed. govt. to require testing.

Your having health insurance effects us all because if you do not have insurance and you are severely injured or ill and go to the hospital and are unable to pay they then petition for a grant to pay your bills. A grant which is paid for by my tax dollars. It always amazes me that the current crop of republicans who claim to be all about self responsibility are so against a law that simply requires that you take responsibility. It should also be noted that the individual mandate (requirement for you to have health insurance) was a REPUBLICAN idea before it ever made it's way into the health care reform plan.

The fact is that there are some things which effect the nation as a whole, and like it or not for society to operate smoothly it makes sense for the federal government to regulate those things.

Bill, you are wrong and believe me I know. The speed limits are a federal stipulation to recieve federal highway funding. Just as is is a federal mandate for nationalized testing to recieve federal education funding. That is how the feds get you over a barrel. They take away your money in the form of taxes and then make you jump through hoops to get any of it back in the form of grants and aid.

If you like being a sheep just say so and we can put a little bell around your neck and put you in the pasture. If not pick up a book once in a while and read. Start with the federal budget. Oh wait we haven't had one of those since Obama has been in office.

Ahoy there matey??? States have the right to refuse the dollars and fix their roads on their own. They can also refuse to take the school money and fund schools on their own, although they must ensure a proper education for their children. Don't get mad at the federal government because it is doing its job and the states (with all their rights) are not doing theirs. They are too busy sticking their chest's out and proclaiming they are not raising taxes, and you are too busy lapping up the tea instead doing something about it. Just saying!!

@Cannon...I will readily admit that I don't know exactly how the regulations regarding the speed limit works, I do know that it is higher here in CA where I live and I also know that CA does in fact receive federal highway funding, so not sure how that works. I already agreed with the fact that the Fed. Gov. does require the testing, and I think they should. I have already given you my argument as to why, and I did so without resorting to any person attack, I see that you obviously cannot give a compelling argument as to why you feel it shouldn't be that way without personal attack.

I am not, nor do I wish to be a "sheep" who simply follows, however, I understand that some things simply should be regulated. Part of living in a society is understanding that you give up a small piece of your personal liberty in order to get the benefits of that society. I willingly give up my ability to go 100 mph down the highway in exchange for having roads that are kept up; I willingly accept that my children should be tested to ensure they are receiving a proper education in exchange for the relatively cheap education they receive (accepting that some taxes go to education but the cost is still cheaper than a private school would be); I willingly give up my ability to simply take something from a store in exchange for being protected from my personal belongings being taken. All things in society are a give and take of what we are willing to give up in order to keep a peaceful, functional society. Accepting that fact is logical, not sheep like.

The fed gov HAS NO MONEY ! It has been wasted and stolen through fraud and abuse by politicians in many states that have used fed money to cover their own shortfalls created by wasteful spending !

The money sent to NO prior to Katrina for levy maintenance and repair was used for anything but ! Planes were purchased , casinos were built and when needed the money was not there !

Bill - I meant no personal attack but I will leave you with one old saying, "Those that would give up freedom for security, deserve niether", 'Ben Franklin'

Charles - you are correct the states can refuse to apply for federal grants and do not have to abide by federal regulation if they do not take funding. However, you will still have to pay taxes. That would make the federal government no better than a common thief.

Canon - I will take you at your word on that. Regarding your quote by Ben Franklin, it is actually one of my favorites. I believe the full quote however is "Those who would give up a little freedom for a little temporary security deserve neither and will surely loose both." What he is talking about in this quote is giving up fundamental freedoms in order to feel more secure from some outside threat. For example, accepting the government tapping phones without a warrant to feel more secure against terrorist.

If you ever have the opportunity I would recommend reading some of the works of Hobbes and Locke. They talk about what they call the "state of nature" versus society. It is that kind of personal liberty that I am talking about giving up, not what we could now call freedom. I do understand were you are coming from, and there is a fine line between giving up enough personal liberty to ensure a safe society (an extreme example being requiring people to give up the liberty of killing someone else) and giving up so much that you loose your freedom (protecting from illegal search and seizure), however, in my opinion at least the issues you bring up do not cross that line; though there are other issues such as much of what was in the Patriot Act (some of which is still active), indefinite detention, etc that I would agree the fed. government has gone to far.

Not surprising. They didn't vote the right way so screw them, right? Just like those Chrysler dealers who donated to the wrong guy.

Chicago politics in action!

Be prepared this is only going to get worse with the increase of natural disasters, we will not be able to "count" on the gov't to assist every disaster.

I agree with that, BUT I believe that we need to stop FIXING the world and take care of our own. Most the countries hate us anyhow. Let them see what happens without our support. Federal and State budgets need to be put under the microscope. Our taxes should come back to us on both levels. Oh, I also agree that if it were you that was in this situation, you would be cussing too.

In addition, my friend was part of Katrina in MS, she and many others got minimal help from FEMA...why... the larger the voice, the more attention it gets, ie: New Orleans. FEMA trucks drove right by them on the way to NO. I lived in MS a year after the storm and for the most part in LA, there was little reclamation compared to MS. MS was very seldom talked about throughout the whole deal. MS basically took care of themselves. New Orleans was NOT hit directly by the hurricane; MS to AL coast was destroyed. I believe, as with other government decisions in the governments, it is who you know and....

Although the article is not about this...I do not want the government telling me what to do either, unfortunately there has to be some intervention for stability. Just be glad you live in the USA, government in other countries have less tolerance. ie: stoning teens for their clothing and other harsh punishments for minimal things they feel is against their government!

End of soapbox…. Have a good life!!!

The government has had no fear of the people for the last 30 years or more. Corporations they fear, the electorate, not so much.

Perhaps we shouldn't be spending money in Afghanistan. That really has nothing to do with this.

Laura: Maybe the amount of money we're spending in Afghanistan and other foreign nations (which I agree we shouldn't be spending) has a LOT to do with why there's no money available in the federal budget for disasters like this...

It may be time to refocus our efforts (and money) to help our citizens here at home, rather than spending it on cultures who ultimatley hate us in spite of what we're trying to do for them?

How about don't spend the money anywhere? The attitude of if we don't spend it here we can spend it there is part of the reason why we're so deeply in debt.

dwighthuth,WHAT?

You want the article about the "pink slime" in hamburgers. Different thread.

So you want to compare a tsunami that wiped out trillions of dollars in property and killed more than 10k people with a tornado storm that killed 7?

Good Grief....

Um, don't you think we should care for our own before caring for the rest of the world?

@Alice Keppel I think we should care for those most in need, both in our country and around the world. Those who have the most hold the burden of helping those who have the least and we by far have the most. It always amazes me the number of "Christian" (and not saying you are making this argument as a Christian Alice just point this out) people I talk to who want to stop aid to foreign nations. I am an atheist now but I seem to remember growing up that one of the core tenants of the Christian faith was charity.

More importantly, however, is that FEMA is not saying that no aid should go to those effected by the storms, they are simply stating that the state and local governments should have the ability to cover it financially. This decision has nothing to do with whether aid is provided, simply who foots the bill.

Bill, in theory, I will agree with you. That being said, I do think we have any number of "those in need" in this country. What is the current rate of poverty here? My only point is, if we can come up with several billion (I think it was billions) for foreign relief, we should be able to spare a bit for our own citizens. Yes, yes, I know, it should come from the state, local and charitable organizations. And I'm willing to admit, maybe I'm wrong. I just happen to live in one of the poorest areas of New York and I see on a daily basis folks doing without. I'd love to see some helping hands here.

Ray, no I am not comparing the tornado to the tsunami. I am comparing American citizens needing help to our willingness to go in debt to help those overseas. They are both in need and at some point we have to say enough. Where does that begin - at home or abroad?

Bill,

Had to correct another person on the charity issue. Jesus taught that, and he did not deal in money. The charity he spoke of was "love." That s why he told us it must start at home before it could spread to others. We can't give what we don't have!!! Other than that, have not bones with your reasonings.

@Annie...I do agree with you that we have many in this country that are in need and that we should be doing everything possible to help them and we do spend billions yearly doing just that (social security, welfare, food stamps, WIC, medicaid, etc); however, the truth of the matter is that our most impoverished areas in this country, and I have lived in more than a few of them, are beautiful neighborhoods compared to some of the best in many countries around the world. So my question becomes, why can't we do both?

No matter how much help we give in our own country, so long as we live in a capitalistic society we will always have those who struggle in comparison to others. That said, the majority of our country is within the middle class and our overall standard of living is amongst the highest in the world (I don't know exactly were we place; wikipedia puts us at 4th, but I can't vouch for the validity of that.). I don't say this to attempt to lessen the burden of those who are impoverished in our country (aprox 15% according to wiki) but only to reiterate my point that being as fortunate as we are we have a moral responsibility to try and help people around the world who are far worse off that we are. Again, I want to say, I absolutely understand your argument, and one level agree, I just feel like I am privileged enough living in this great country where I have food on my table, clothes on my back, and a warm bed to sleep in, not to mention all of the luxuries we have available, that I am happy to let some of my tax dollars go to those in need worldwide, as well as here in the U.S. I would like to add by the way, that though we disagree slightly it would seem I am happy to find someone who is actually willing to discuss it logically rather than simply insulting those who disagree and moving on. Also, I on that note, I apologize for my all caps comment on another thread regarding this article and my somewhat condescending comment in response to your post. I was frustrated at some of the comments overall on the board and the other I was responding to at the same time in particular and I descended to a level I normally attempt to stay above. I apologize.

@Charles...Aha, it's been a very LONG time since I opened a Bible so I am happy to take your word on that. As I stated above I am an atheist, so I do not point to any biblical teachings for my personal beliefs. I do think, however, from a moral standpoint we as people have an obligation to help each other whenever possible. I agree we must start at home, and I would point to my comments above regarding that, but I don't think you have to limit yourself to one when you are as vast a nation and economy as we are.

Agreed! And, no malice or criticism on your statements. I'm not atheist nor christain, but like you enjoy reading the bible. Thanks!!

@Charles...None taken, I appreciate the information. Honestly, even when I was a practicing Christian I had trouble sitting down and reading the Bible so my memory of the scriptures is a bit rusty :).

Illinois is one of the wealthiest states in the nation. FEMA bailing them out would be like bailing out New York ( Wall Street) or California (coming) the Wealthiest states come with their hand out. They should be ashamed of themselves.

@tjmcma...Where did you get this information? I have looked around online trying to find facts to substantiate your claim that Illinois, or New York for that matter, are amongst the richest states and have been unable to. Most list I found only showed the top 10 and bottom 10 states, and neither IL or NY were on either of those list. Wikipedia (which I can't vouch for the validity of) shows NY at 14 and IL at 16, so pretty much right in the middle.

My guess is that you are assuming that because Chicago and New York City are some of the wealthiest cities that the states must follow suet. The issue with that logic is that both states are very large, with very diverse populations including both heavily rural and heavily urban areas as well as both high income and heavily impoverished areas.

Having lived in So. IL for most of my life before I moved to CA I can tell you that there are many very poor areas in So. IL. Chicago is a very wealthy area, as are parts of Springfield and other large cities throughout the state, and they buoy the overall state economy, but they are far from large enough to make it "one of the wealthiest states in the nation."

Bill (many, many hours later), you don't need to apologize. I understand the frustration and how it sometimes just boils over. And like a pot on the stove, it has to go somewhere. I have broad shoulders anyway and fairly thick skin.

No, ptownz, I think we are all wondering why there is so much money to send to disasters around the world, but our own people can just "suck it up" and deal with it. Or was that sarcasm?

"Or was that sarcasm?" ......... nope , just the great system we all perpetuate.

"we are all wondering" .... seems to be the case a lot.

There are double standards with FEMA aid and it typically politically motivated.

But if anyone relies on the government to help them out, they really deserve whatever is coming their way. Those people floating face down in New Orleans found out the hard way to put their own personal safety in the government's hands.

People should really insure their own property unless they think it isn't worth insuring and are willing to accept losing it were a disaster to occur.

okay first of all @WilliamJenkins_III what double standards are political motivation exactly? If you are going to make an outrageous claim like that you need to be able to back it up with solid fact. If you can produce evidence that this is the case I will happily say I am wrong and will be the first person to support any action to correct it. The fact is though that you are simply making a political statement based in no fact for the purpose of making your point against FEMA and the current administration.

@Annie see my previous post for full response, but in the short NO ONE IS SAYING THEY SHOULD NOT RECEIVE AID! They are simply saying that he state should foot the bill since the financial cost is at a level that the state and local government disaster funds should be sufficient to cover an needed disaster relief. For Christ sake not only does the story say this but ptownz QUOTED the part of the story that says it in his comment. Please actually READ before you comment.

One more thing @WilliamJenkins_III...Disaster relief fund do not typically go toward rebuilding or repairing private property. When additional funds are needed for that (when either not covered by insurance or when there is a gap between insurance coverage and cost of repairs) it is given in the form of low interest loans, not free money. Disaster relief funds go toward rebuilding public infrastructure (roads, schools, water stations, etc) and providing immediate relief by way of shelters, food, water, etc. in the aftermath of a disaster.

I know when Oklahoma had the Ice Storm in 2007, we had to contact our Property Insurer's to pay for Debris CLEAN UP, Roof Damage, etc. Because of the Electricity Outage, the State did cover and provide the equipment needed to restore electricity to our homes.

These Natural Disaster's have become so worrisome to Insurance Company's, meaning, they are paying out MORE than getting in, that Deductibles have become outrageous, especially on Roofs! My Roof deductible has INCREASED to $2000, in addition to unreasonable Annual Premiums. Property Insurer's are using every trick in the book, right down to a bad Credit Score to RAISE your Premiums, despite the fact that you've had very few SMALL claims. We KNOW that if you ever had a House Fire, you're booted from that carrier, and PRAY that another carrier will pick you up!

In addition, FEMA is out of funds. I was watching a program this week end, showing how our Deficit is a TRILLION DOLLARS LARGER than Revenue coming in! We just don't have the money to cover these Disaster's!

Until our Government DO SOMETHING to Wall Street and ALL WHOM CAUSE THIS ECONOMY DISASTER, RECOVER all the STOLEN SAVINGS, INVESTMENTS & PENSIONS, TERMINATE BUSH'S TAX GIVE-AWAYS TO THE RICH, in the same time of HIS DECLARED INVASION of IRAQ, we will be operating in the RED for YEARS TO COME!