Lou Dobbs Agrees, sort of, Impeach George Bush, just like WallStreetChange Reported a Week Ago.

Reported on this Blog one week ago, Impeach Bush over his inability to rally any government resources over REDUCING FUTURE FLOODING downstream that would be occurring over the next couple of weeks.

Lou Dobbs expresses impeachment concerns about tomato tainted salmonella. All I can say is if Lou Dobbs thinks George Bush should be impeached for salmonella tainted tomatoes, what about his non action in doing anything to REDUCE flood damage that is yet to happen.

Both of our stories came on the same day. I think the flood waters are an easier target to fight than salmonella, but either way, George Bush doesn't seem interested in making a real difference in his own country, just fighting wars elsewhere.

Lou Dobbs Impeachment Article
WallStreetChange Impeach George Bush Article

Should President George Bush be Impeached over the Rampant Flood Damage that is still Days and Weeks Away?

Nobody knows at this point how much damage the Flooding along Iowa and on down the Mississippi River and surrounding areas will cause. But the FACT that NOTHING by the government is being done to mitigate the floodwaters before they do new damage downstream, is very disconcerting to me.

Is the lesson learned from New Orleans to simply get FEMA in place as soon as possible and help flood victims, is that all has been learned? Of all the types of non-man made disasters, slow motion floods fall into a different category simply because their damage can go on for days and weeks as the mass of water moves downstream to new locations, causing more and more devastation.
If President Bush thinks his only responsibility is to monitor flood damage that has already occurred, acknowledge that more damage is to come, visit the flooded location, and dole out money that isn't his, he could be charged with reckless disregard for the american citizen, and I think this kind of reaction is worthy of impeachment charges being brought against him.

If you found out that 100 billion dollars in damage related to the floods was going to occur, and that damage could have been cut in half to 50 billion dollars with a 5 billion dollar influx of governmental resources, resources that would have both created jobs while reducing flood damages, wouldn't that mean that the government just squandered 45 billion dollars of taxpayers money?

Is George Bush's government about spending money to fight wars in other countries while disregarding the welfare of people in his own country?

MInimal, insignificant action on the homefront by George Bush as it relates to PREVENTING additional flood damage is not acceptable. I consider that to be reason enough for impeachment. Who in congress is on the president's case to do more? To make sure resources besides money are in place to reduce future flood damages? Or is congress fearful that if they speak up now, their region will get less funds after the flood waters have receded?

Is this the best that we can do?

500 Year Flood, Dredging up Mountains of Mud might have prevented billions of dollars in Damages.

Apparently, there may be a "wave effect" from all the Mississippi River related flooding. Places farther north that are suffering right now, such as Cedar Rapids, Iowa, may then translate into places further south having their flooding problems in the near future. Is it possible that some type of dredging or ground forces could make a difference farther south, except that perhaps we just are not prepared to fight wars against nature?

Is it possible that George Bush believes that the military is to be used only to fight in other parts of the world, but never to heal problems in the United States? In a twisted sort of way, is the government secretly pleased that the floods will cause a lot of damage, and that once the floods have receded the local economies will get a much needed boost from the insurance companies? Could that be the master plan?

I think we can do much, much better than that.

Cedar Rapids Iowa Flooding, How Long for the Media to Realize this is more important than the Presidential Race Daily Discussion?

I don't mean to imply that Cedar Rapids, Iowa is the only place that has had trouble this year. Tornados, Cyclones, Earthquakes and floods have been happening all over the world. 50,000 people and more have perished in earthquakes.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa is starting to look and feel like New Orleans and the news agencies are still too wrapped up in the presidential campaigns to switch gears and make this flood the real top story.
In coming days, Cedar Rapids, Iowa will be heard about more and more, but what about right now? This lack of complete focus on troubled american regions harms the american people and economy by not letting the proper attention be used to make a difference.

I heard that FEMA is out there, but why is MSNBC still going on and on about the presidential race that is still months away while floods waters rise to unheard of levels.

How Wall Street could help Prevent Flooding from the Mississippi River, but Refuses to do so.

Over time, the Mississippi River bottom literally gets "muddied up". The result is the depth of the Mississippi gets shallower and shallower. Today we see the result of that shallow depth as the midwest experiences monstrous floods unseen in at least 15 years.

Some people like to rationalize that floods are good for the economy. Insurance money "floods" the area and people go forward with the task of rebuilding their lives, hiring contractors who in turn purchase supplies, and so on.

While one can agree that there is sort of a perverse economic insurance funded bounce after a tragedy, I doubt that the actual net affect is a good one. How about Wall Street actually supporting the revitalization of the Mississipi River by having it dredged several feet deeper. I would assume that the mud at the base of the Mississippi River is actually good potting and planting soil, no?

Why can't Wall Street just create an industry that actually maintains the Mississippi River and in the process prevents flooding, damage to billions of dollars worth of real estate, reduces Insurance Industry costs, and creates a made in america product? Or should I say Mud in America. Mississippi Mud would probably would be coveted in the United States, especially with so many people starting to grow their own fruits and vegetables.

If you are an expert in the field of flood management and want to refute my position, please do so in the comments section. I just want to understand why Wall Street can't create a win win win situation within the United States, but happily will bilk indebted american citizens to the tune of 30% credit card interest rate charges, and then use that money to invest in economies outside of the United States. How about Wall Street start helping the very people they are overcharging and underserving.