Florida has had some pretty efficient FEDERAL help through the years. And Kmarion; blaming the victims is tasteless. Most of the fraud was on out of state "workers" hired to rebuild and running with the money.golgoj4 wrote:
I totally agree with you on the fact that local government fell down on its ass during the emergency. Whats amazing is how it seems like all levels of government failed.Kmarion wrote:
I have a friend that worked for FEMA. He said that having the money to help people get started wasn't the problem. Actually I think his words were "Can't get rid of it fast enough". Getting New'O residents to fill out the appropriate paper work was the challenge. Fraud is an issue when dealing with 200 billion in aid. I spent time after Katrina in New'O helping out. I had a buddy who was sent there to help from our local electric company. The people in New'O were politically exploited. FEMA is not a first response organization, in fact they tell local governments to base their preparations around a 72 to 96 hours response time. Yet we blame Bush first over the people who could have saved lives. The media constantly reminds us of the causalities in Iraq but they seem content in giving a pass to the local government in New Orleans, the guys who could have saved many by just having a better plan. It was Blanco who dithered over accepting help from FEMA, and over deploying the National Guard, and even over allowing the Red Cross to deliver supplies to several sites around New Orleans. You won't hear much about that.
Sounds to me like Florida has experience dealing with desasters and has developed plans for said situations. I would imagin that Louisina has not made the effort to prepare because, "it won't happen to us" while Florida lives in reality.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Florida has had some pretty efficient FEDERAL help through the years. And Kmarion; blaming the victims is tasteless. Most of the fraud was on out of state "workers" hired to rebuild and running with the money.golgoj4 wrote:
I totally agree with you on the fact that local government fell down on its ass during the emergency. Whats amazing is how it seems like all levels of government failed.Kmarion wrote:
I have a friend that worked for FEMA. He said that having the money to help people get started wasn't the problem. Actually I think his words were "Can't get rid of it fast enough". Getting New'O residents to fill out the appropriate paper work was the challenge. Fraud is an issue when dealing with 200 billion in aid. I spent time after Katrina in New'O helping out. I had a buddy who was sent there to help from our local electric company. The people in New'O were politically exploited. FEMA is not a first response organization, in fact they tell local governments to base their preparations around a 72 to 96 hours response time. Yet we blame Bush first over the people who could have saved lives. The media constantly reminds us of the causalities in Iraq but they seem content in giving a pass to the local government in New Orleans, the guys who could have saved many by just having a better plan. It was Blanco who dithered over accepting help from FEMA, and over deploying the National Guard, and even over allowing the Red Cross to deliver supplies to several sites around New Orleans. You won't hear much about that.
Some posts I won't even address, there's no point doing so. I will only say that many people here are very confused about the duties of a government. Inidividuals should take care by themselves, and they also should be protected by the governement.
But hey, you are supposed to be on your own. If you don't have insurance screw you. Don't waste your time voting, you are on your own anyway. /sarcasm
But hey, you are supposed to be on your own. If you don't have insurance screw you. Don't waste your time voting, you are on your own anyway. /sarcasm
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-07-18 10:49:11)
Shouldn't that go for Iraq as well?sergeriver wrote:
Some posts I won't even address, there's no point doing so. I will only say that many people here are very confused about the duties of a government. Inidividuals should take care by themselves, and they also should be protected by the governement. But hey, you are supposed to be on your own. If you don't have insurance screw you. Don't waste your time voting, you are on your own anyway.
What part? I was being sarcastic.GATOR591957 wrote:
Shouldn't that go for Iraq as well?sergeriver wrote:
Some posts I won't even address, there's no point doing so. I will only say that many people here are very confused about the duties of a government. Inidividuals should take care by themselves, and they also should be protected by the governement. But hey, you are supposed to be on your own. If you don't have insurance screw you. Don't waste your time voting, you are on your own anyway.
Never said that.golgoj4 wrote:
So if your hometown was leveled by a natural disaster, should we say fuck rebuilding your town? Should we abandon you completely, say tough shit and move on to the next town, mayb you'll have better luck?
Excuses about how there are no jobs are lame when there has been nothing but a pathetic attempt to rebuild the city. Maybe im just crazy, but I would rather NOT abandon any American city or town. But I guess thats fading ideal.
But meanwhile, lets keep wasting all this fucking cash in iraq. WTF!>?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
It seems the conservatives are really the cut and run types as they dont have the guts to stick out the process of rebuilding an American city.
I said that a lot of businesses left already and won't be back for years. The harsh reality is what do you go back to?
Excuse me, government is established to create and enforce the rule of law. We have given them powers to regulate many aspects of our lives and to limit personal freedoms to some extent. However, the government does not own the power, water, gas or phones lines. These are all privately owned services supplied by corporations that are For Profit. These corporations have insurance and they are rebuilding also.sergeriver wrote:
Some posts I won't even address, there's no point doing so. I will only say that many people here are very confused about the duties of a government. Inidividuals should take care by themselves, and they also should be protected by the governement. But hey, you are supposed to be on your own. If you don't have insurance screw you. Don't waste your time voting, you are on your own anyway.
The government supplied these people with a starting point, if they did not take this and run with it, then they are now at the mercy of charity. They have a responibility to re-establish themselves, not to sit on thier hands waiting for the next handout. I would be willing to bet the majority of the people in that artical were poor or unemplyed to begin with and probably though their own doing. They were given the opportunity to rebuild and they have turned there backs to it. We can not expect the govenrment to be Mother Teresa and save the poor and lowely if they are not prepared to save themselves.
"Very confused about the duties of a government". Seems like you are really talking about a difference in ideology. I've stating aid was given.sergeriver wrote:
Some posts I won't even address, there's no point doing so. I will only say that many people here are very confused about the duties of a government. Inidividuals should take care by themselves, and they also should be protected by the governement.
But hey, you are supposed to be on your own. If you don't have insurance screw you. Don't waste your time voting, you are on your own anyway. /sarcasm
"If you don't have insurance screw you". I would imagine a lot of NOLA residents could not afford insurance. Gov't aid was paid and other help. That doesn't sound like screw you to me.
Basically you are saying that it's not enough, not soon enough etc etc etc because the aid is drying up. It isn't long-term aid. It's not supposed to be. If you disagree with it, fine...but that's the way it has been...always.
And I also supposed that before we invade another country, we should have the foresight and imagination to predict hurricane damage...so we can determine where to spend our resources.
HEY, I have an idea.
Why don't you adopt a refugee? Pay a family's expenses? Or maybe you can send us some money to help pay for Iraq, so we can funnel more to Katrina victims? How about it?
Saying that there was fraud issues does not qualify my remarks as tasteless. Your attempting to demonize me for not being compassionate when I gave my own time to help. I was obviously talking about the ones who exploited the circumstances. I'm glad you decided to compare federal aide between the two states though. Katrina aide was 4 times more than all six major hurricanes in the previous two years combined.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Florida has had some pretty efficient FEDERAL help through the years. And Kmarion; blaming the victims is tasteless. Most of the fraud was on out of state "workers" hired to rebuild and running with the money.golgoj4 wrote:
I totally agree with you on the fact that local government fell down on its ass during the emergency. Whats amazing is how it seems like all levels of government failed.Kmarion wrote:
I have a friend that worked for FEMA. He said that having the money to help people get started wasn't the problem. Actually I think his words were "Can't get rid of it fast enough". Getting New'O residents to fill out the appropriate paper work was the challenge. Fraud is an issue when dealing with 200 billion in aid. I spent time after Katrina in New'O helping out. I had a buddy who was sent there to help from our local electric company. The people in New'O were politically exploited. FEMA is not a first response organization, in fact they tell local governments to base their preparations around a 72 to 96 hours response time. Yet we blame Bush first over the people who could have saved lives. The media constantly reminds us of the causalities in Iraq but they seem content in giving a pass to the local government in New Orleans, the guys who could have saved many by just having a better plan. It was Blanco who dithered over accepting help from FEMA, and over deploying the National Guard, and even over allowing the Red Cross to deliver supplies to several sites around New Orleans. You won't hear much about that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The local government in New Orleans was corrupt as it is. They had a weeks advance to leave the area as it is. Why would you live in an area that is under sea-level, held back by a levee that hadn't been updated in some 20 - 30 years?
I've emailed this thread to a friend that lives in New Orleans. I'm hoping he will respond to your post. People that don't live in the region have no comprehension of the history and flavor that once was New Orleans. Why would people live below sea level. Why do people live in Florida where they are hit by hurricanes, Kansas where Dorothy and Toto are real life experiences, California land of the Earthquakes I guess the same reason I live in AZ where it's bee 116 degrees. Outwardly makes no sense.ReDevilJR wrote:
The local government in New Orleans was corrupt as it is. They had a weeks advance to leave the area as it is. Why would you live in an area that is under sea-level, held back by a levee that hadn't been updated in some 20 - 30 years?
And on top of that:ReDevilJR wrote:
The local government in New Orleans was corrupt as it is. They had a weeks advance to leave the area as it is. Why would you live in an area that is under sea-level, held back by a levee that hadn't been updated in some 20 - 30 years?
Jefferson Parish, which shares the levee with New Orleans did improvements on their levee a few years back. They hired a company from Boston to do the work.
New Orleans Parish, requires local (New Orleans Parish-based) company to do government work. Their recommendations were about 3/4 of what the Boston company proposed. Then the city voted down the bond to make the improvements. Therefore no government-matched aid.
Guess what happened? Jefferson Parish's levees did not break.
2nd story - I know a guy who opened a restaurant down there. The local magistrate said he could get his building permit...if he contributed to his reelection fund, and specified how much.
Ummmmm...Do any of you realize that New Orleans will be underwater withing the next 60 to 100 years. There is no sense in rebuilding a place that will no longer be viable to live in anyway. New Orleans was built in a hole (basically)..it sits quite a bit below sea level and actually part of the reason the levees failed was because a lot of them were already reaching max water levels around them.Braddock wrote:
I may have missed your point but I think you missed mine too. The money spent in Iraq could have rebuilt New Orleans several times over.Pug wrote:
You missed the point. Why haven't they tried a different city?Braddock wrote:
But you can expect the Government to pump around a billion dollars into Iraq every week?
They shouldn't have to move, measures should have been in place or initiated after the initial disaster to save the area.
There are articles and photo evidence of the ocean encroaching around New Orleans at a high rate since the mid 20th century. If New Orleans wants to survive then they are going to have to build huge water retaining walls all around it or plan it to be another Venice. The ocean will swallow that area within 100 years. Its not climate change, its not global warming....its nature and no matter what money you spend...you won't stop her.
So ...if you live in New Orleans....I hope you don't plan to live there your whole lives.It's actually a smart thing that we don't waste a lot of money on a place that will be slowly destroyed again, maybe in my lifetime or not. What needs to happen is that they rebuild away from that area, relocate themselves and at this point, the temp help is done with.
First off, I wasn't talking about your post. But if you wanna debate these issues, np buddy. I will only say what GWB said and I quote:Pug wrote:
"Very confused about the duties of a government". Seems like you are really talking about a difference in ideology. I've stating aid was given.sergeriver wrote:
Some posts I won't even address, there's no point doing so. I will only say that many people here are very confused about the duties of a government. Inidividuals should take care by themselves, and they also should be protected by the governement.
But hey, you are supposed to be on your own. If you don't have insurance screw you. Don't waste your time voting, you are on your own anyway. /sarcasm
"If you don't have insurance screw you". I would imagine a lot of NOLA residents could not afford insurance. Gov't aid was paid and other help. That doesn't sound like screw you to me.
Basically you are saying that it's not enough, not soon enough etc etc etc because the aid is drying up. It isn't long-term aid. It's not supposed to be. If you disagree with it, fine...but that's the way it has been...always.
And I also supposed that before we invade another country, we should have the foresight and imagination to predict hurricane damage...so we can determine where to spend our resources.
HEY, I have an idea.
Why don't you adopt a refugee? Pay a family's expenses? Or maybe you can send us some money to help pay for Iraq, so we can funnel more to Katrina victims? How about it?
“Americans want the Gulf Coast not just to survive, but to thrive; not just to cope, but to overcome, We want evacuees to come home, for the best of reasons — because they have a real chance at a better life in a place they love.” Sept. 15, 2005
Netherlands anyone?ReDevilJR wrote:
The local government in New Orleans was corrupt as it is. They had a weeks advance to leave the area as it is. Why would you live in an area that is under sea-level, held back by a levee that hadn't been updated in some 20 - 30 years?
They get Cat 5 hurricanes there?sergeriver wrote:
Netherlands anyone?ReDevilJR wrote:
The local government in New Orleans was corrupt as it is. They had a weeks advance to leave the area as it is. Why would you live in an area that is under sea-level, held back by a levee that hadn't been updated in some 20 - 30 years?
Are hurricanes the only cause for floods you know?usmarine2005 wrote:
They get Cat 5 hurricanes there?sergeriver wrote:
Netherlands anyone?ReDevilJR wrote:
The local government in New Orleans was corrupt as it is. They had a weeks advance to leave the area as it is. Why would you live in an area that is under sea-level, held back by a levee that hadn't been updated in some 20 - 30 years?
Ok, then debate it. A quote is nice, but it supports what point? How about this:sergeriver wrote:
First off, I wasn't talking about your post. But if you wanna debate these issues, np buddy. I will only say what GWB said and I quote:
“Americans want the Gulf Coast not just to survive, but to thrive; not just to cope, but to overcome, We want evacuees to come home, for the best of reasons — because they have a real chance at a better life in a place they love.” Sept. 15, 2005
Did you know that there was 1.4 million people in Greater New Orleans (includes the delta) before, and there is 1.2 million now? So a 14% population reduction after one of the worst disasters to hit the US? The 200k difference is mostly due to people not moving back into the metro area.
That doesn't sound like the government totally 'effing everything up. Your comments on the duties of government, and how it's doing jack shit, and the government is worthless are severly misguided. It just has more work to do, and I hope they get it done faster.
I lived in NOLA for 9 years, left in '92. You have absolutely no idea what the place was like so you are severly lacking in knowing just the magnitude of what was lost. Specifically, no Katrina = 50% of the population is still under the poverty line. How many are now above the poverty line? Unknown...but my guess is that in leaving NOLA they have a better chance.
It will take decades to rebuild New Orleans. It's been ALMOST two years. Aren't you being at little early in this judgement?
Instead of giving heaps of money to the refugees, why not build stuff that'll help them get out of the poverty that existed prior to Katrina?
Over 100mph winds also?sergeriver wrote:
Are hurricanes the only cause for floods you know?usmarine2005 wrote:
They get Cat 5 hurricanes there?sergeriver wrote:
Netherlands anyone?
North Sea flood of 1953usmarine2005 wrote:
Over 100mph winds also?sergeriver wrote:
Are hurricanes the only cause for floods you know?usmarine2005 wrote:
They get Cat 5 hurricanes there?
Interesting
southern california could really use that. but that same line of thinking about new orleans or the netherlands could be used for any major city that is a the site of infrequent disaster. Los Angeles, Tokyo, and Tehran all see earthquakes often enough. WHat about all the cities that are builty next to or on volcanoes?sergeriver wrote:
North Sea flood of 1953usmarine2005 wrote:
Over 100mph winds also?sergeriver wrote:
Are hurricanes the only cause for floods you know?
to answer the question. As much as I dislike the man, you cant blame him for natural disasters and you cant blame the federal government for screwing up where the local and state govt should have been doing the work.
c'mon, new orleans PD abondoning there duties......
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-07-18 14:08:20)
I mean the weather channel did tell them like a week earlier to leave. Some of them waiting to the last minute and they paid the price.
Not that this is the norm, but the guy in my office said that the newscast the night before said Katrina was going to miss them. They got a phone call a 4:30 and left 2 hrs later.Sgt.Kyle wrote:
I mean the weather channel did tell them like a week earlier to leave. Some of them waiting to the last minute and they paid the price.
When it doesn't happen a lot, you kind of think it's never gonna happen. That's pretty much why the public voted against improving the levees.