No they were warned for decades. They proceeded to spend levee money on other city projects.. like fountains and such.FatherTed wrote:
Pretty sure they had confidence in the leveeslowing wrote:
Pretty sure they knew, they lived below sea level on the edge of the sea.FatherTed wrote:
Pretty sure it wasn't the hurricane that caused the damage, it was the large scale collapse of the levee system over there
Pretty sure large areas of Holland live in the same situation
And bigger levees, and channel straightening, and dredging. meh, hard solutions never work.Kmarion wrote:
No they were warned for decades. They proceeded to spend levee money on other city projects.. like fountains and such.FatherTed wrote:
Pretty sure they had confidence in the leveeslowing wrote:
Pretty sure they knew, they lived below sea level on the edge of the sea.
Pretty sure large areas of Holland live in the same situation
The problem with this is that it makes little difference how long the rep or dems are in power, the changes tend to occur regardless of whether they stay rep/dem for 4 or 8 years.Kmarion wrote:
There is a great deal of lag between policy and effect. It takes years to filter through our enormous economy. I see every democrat raising unemployment as their policies come in to fruition. It's disheartening to look at your graph and watch the dems turning the trend around.PureFodder wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 0_2005.pnglowing wrote:
The same class of people that love govt. taking responsibility away form them. The class of people that would rather live off of someone elses money than earn a living of their own
Unemployment tends to rise under republicans and drop under democrats, but lets not lets facts get in the way with a nice Lowing rant.
Security/Policing would be a fair bit, cleaning before & after, decoration, all the sound, tons of stuff.Varegg wrote:
I agree with lowing that the money used on the inauguration was way to much, how is it even possible to use that amount of money on such a short time, if the sum lowing listed is correct that is ...
The bigger problem is that it focuses on the branch of government that does not make the laws.PureFodder wrote:
The problem with this is that it makes little difference how long the rep or dems are in power, the changes tend to occur regardless of whether they stay rep/dem for 4 or 8 years.Kmarion wrote:
There is a great deal of lag between policy and effect. It takes years to filter through our enormous economy. I see every democrat raising unemployment as their policies come in to fruition. It's disheartening to look at your graph and watch the dems turning the trend around.PureFodder wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 0_2005.png
Unemployment tends to rise under republicans and drop under democrats, but lets not lets facts get in the way with a nice Lowing rant.
Crazy huh? The new president is responsible for all moving costs to get there, but once he arrives there is a gazillion dollar party paid for by the taxpayers. I would rather move him on my dime and let him throw his own party tbh.Varegg wrote:
I agree with lowing that the money used on the inauguration was way to much, how is it even possible to use that amount of money on such a short time, if the sum lowing listed is correct that is ...
His values may be, but he isn't going to support just one side. That's not even possible in politics.Stingray24 wrote:
When his values are completely contrary to ours why should we?TheAussieReaper wrote:
I guess there is no chance lowing will actually support his own President, in anything.
I know this ... but if lowings sums are correct the sum was only $42 million 4 years earlier ... from 42 to 120 is quite a rise ...FatherTed wrote:
Security/Policing would be a fair bit, cleaning before & after, decoration, all the sound, tons of stuff.Varegg wrote:
I agree with lowing that the money used on the inauguration was way to much, how is it even possible to use that amount of money on such a short time, if the sum lowing listed is correct that is ...
Places to use the bathroom.. which I hear was severely under planned..lolFatherTed wrote:
Security/Policing would be a fair bit, cleaning before & after, decoration, all the sound, tons of stuff.Varegg wrote:
I agree with lowing that the money used on the inauguration was way to much, how is it even possible to use that amount of money on such a short time, if the sum lowing listed is correct that is ...
No figures for attendance, but i guess it was quite a bit more than last time - by a long way. The more people attend, the more the aspects mentioned before are going to cost. Oh, iirc, the military had jets and helos in the air at the time, that costs a shitton too.Varegg wrote:
I know this ... but if lowings sums are correct the sum was only $42 million 4 years earlier ... from 42 to 120 is quite a rise ...FatherTed wrote:
Security/Policing would be a fair bit, cleaning before & after, decoration, all the sound, tons of stuff.Varegg wrote:
I agree with lowing that the money used on the inauguration was way to much, how is it even possible to use that amount of money on such a short time, if the sum lowing listed is correct that is ...
So next inauguration will cost $400 million when Jeb Bush wins in 2012?SgtHeihn wrote:
I guess they saw $120 million being equal to the $42 million because of inflation.
Jebs too smart.. no way he runs.Varegg wrote:
So next inauguration will cost $400 million when Jeb Bush wins in 2012?SgtHeihn wrote:
I guess they saw $120 million being equal to the $42 million because of inflation.
200% inflationSgtHeihn wrote:
I guess they saw $120 million being equal to the $42 million because of inflation.
At least that, you have to remember Jeb will NEED that cocaine after party. That bash will probably cost the tax payers in the range of 20-30million easy.Varegg wrote:
So next inauguration will cost $400 million when Jeb Bush wins in 2012?SgtHeihn wrote:
I guess they saw $120 million being equal to the $42 million because of inflation.
Consider how many people turned out to see Bush's 2nd inauguration compared with the Obama one.Varegg wrote:
I know this ... but if lowings sums are correct the sum was only $42 million 4 years earlier ... from 42 to 120 is quite a rise ...
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2009-02-01 15:03:25)
It's not like he has anything to say about the matter, if dad decides he shall run he willKmarion wrote:
Jebs too smart.. no way he runs.Varegg wrote:
So next inauguration will cost $400 million when Jeb Bush wins in 2012?SgtHeihn wrote:
I guess they saw $120 million being equal to the $42 million because of inflation.
666! ITS A CONSPIRACYReciprocity wrote:
2005 Bush inauguration=$105 per person
2009 Obama inauguration=$66.66 per person
sounds like a good deal.
Where did you find that?Reciprocity wrote:
2005 Bush inauguration=$105 per person
2009 Obama inauguration=$66.66 per person
sounds like a good deal.
.. right.Varegg wrote:
It's not like he has anything to say about the matter, if dad decides he shall run he willKmarion wrote:
Jebs too smart.. no way he runs.Varegg wrote:
So next inauguration will cost $400 million when Jeb Bush wins in 2012?
Yup and he is already a fuckin liar, so much for changeReciprocity wrote:
lol, eight years. and O has been president for how many days?Kmarion wrote:
Please.. the disgruntled title has been securely dominated by the Bush Bashers the last 8 years.
THe rest of us knew it was coming with over a week notice, how much time do ya really need to get to high ground.Kmarion wrote:
You just said "how is it no one knew it was going to hit". I believe I buried that thought. I also demonstrated the difficulties of actually getting out of town on such short notice.lowing wrote:
It isn't hte people that left we are talking about is it? We are talking about those that couldn't run for high ground but has no problem running for the police
