Hurricane Katrina...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

I read the Swiss were offering their oil reserves , they have oil ?

---

They also have a navy.

---

the army isn't much to worry about though, unless you're a bottle of beer :ermm:

Dont we need a large area for nuclear waste :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

They also have a navy.

---

the army isn't much to worry about though, unless you're a bottle of beer :ermm:

---

Or a stone in a horse's shoe.

I think that the majority of the people have been evacuated now. Not all of them but most of them have been taken to shelters. That begs the question what do we do with these people now? This is going to be a long term thing and I can’t see all of these people staying in sports arenas and convention centers for 6 months on up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by busyman

edit: and this shit is mostly because the levies broke. Who foresaw that?

---

Lots of people for quite a while.

The Federal Money that was repairing and upkeeping the Levies stopped when Iraq started.. matter of priorities dontcha know.

The main break occurred in a section where the Feds had just told them to sod off, when begged for money to repair earlier this year... well, this isnt strictly true, The Whitehouse blocked it. ;)

Quote:

---

Even though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city, the waters may still keep rising in New Orleans. That's because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city's 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until it's level with the massive lake.

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune:

"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them."

The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.

The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.

There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:

"That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said."

The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late.

One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday.

The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."

Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."

---

Source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Lots of people for quite a while.

The Federal Money that was repairing and upkeeping the Levies stopped when Iraq started.. matter of priorities dontcha know.

The main break occurred in a section where the Feds had just told them to sod off, when begged for money to repair earlier this year... well, this isnt strictly true, The Whitehouse blocked it. ;)

Quote:

---

Even though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city, the waters may still keep rising in New Orleans. That's because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city's 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until it's level with the massive lake.

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune:

"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them."

The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.

The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.

There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:

"That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said."

The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late.

One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday.

The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."

Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."

---

Source

---

Post 113. :ermm: ...but thanks anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

I think that the majority of the people have been evacuated now. Not all of them but most of them have been taken to shelters. That begs the question what do we do with these people now? This is going to be a long term thing and I can’t see all of these people staying in sports arenas and convention centers for 6 months on up.

---

There will be an increase in crime to regions with refugees with it ballooning out to other areas.

it sounds really bizarre to call americans in america refugees :ermm:

Well some people saw it coming, Busyman.

National Geographic, October 2004

i think busy's point was that everybody saw it coming but the republicans deicided to cut resources to spend elsewhere. namely iraq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

i think busy's point was that everybody saw it coming but the republicans deicided to cut resources to spend elsewhere. namely iraq

---

I was replying to his post about not forseeing the levees breaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Well some people saw it coming, Busyman.

National Geographic, October 2004

---

Damn, I got chills reading that article. talk about predictions :ohmy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

i think busy's point was that everybody saw it coming but the republicans deicided to cut resources to spend elsewhere. namely iraq

---

I was replying to his post about not forseeing the levees breaking.

---

Post 126 :ermm: but thanks anyway.

But was the situation mis-underestiamated, or did they just not care?



Or both..

In reality, there many States in the running for Federal monies. Many feel their situations are the most important, and many left uncompleted could end up with disastrous results as this one did.

I don't agree with the war in Iraq. But I can't blame the Federal Funds not being there on the war in Iraq alone. There are only so many Federal Funds for special projects, war or no war. We could also say that if the Federal Government didn't give us the tax refunds they have given us, or if they hadn't given so much foreign aid, or if they hadn't given states and cities so many billions in grants for emergency preparedness since 9/11, the money would be there for the levy in New Orleans.

Any time I read an article like this that doesn't point these other facts out, and instead repeatedly blames the lack of fed funds for this project on only the Iraq war, imo it has been written for a single agenda somehow.

Rose don’t forget Clinton and Gore were supposed Mr. environment and didn’t do a damn thing about the levees for 8 years that they were in office.

192 billion, iraq cost. they needed only 60 million to fix the coast but only got 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Rose don’t forget Clinton and Gore were supposed Mr. environment and didn’t do a damn thing about the levees for 8 years that they were in office.

---

You can't temper a failing by saying that someone else failed too. You can't justify inaction by saying that someone else did also did nothing.

You're a mechanic, right? If you did a service on a car and the very next day the brakes failed and caused a fatal accident, would you sit back and console yourself that a competitor did likewise.

No, you would condemn yourself for shoddy workmanship.


I have no looks on Bush, but I don't think you'd find him taking that line. Poor show, Hank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Rose don’t forget Clinton and Gore were supposed Mr. environment and didn’t do a damn thing about the levees for 8 years that they were in office.

---

Well, that is right. Many things to be taken into consideration, aren't there? It seems like we have had to spend so much money on natural disaster clean up that sometimes the prevention has to be delayed....especially if the project depends on a natural disaster that may or may not occur, and the funds are needed where they have occured first. And then, by golly, think of the federal projects that have been delayed for years at much expense because we needed to protect an endangered species.

You know, Florida had what......4 hurricanes last year? Was it a mistake to spend money there? Should the federal government have left those people to their own defenses and used that money to shore up this levee in case we happened to get this hundred year storm in New Orleans? I could hear the uproar, couldn't you?

Hindsight is hindsight. You always hope to learn from it, but when you are picking your priorities as far as federal funding goes.......you have a lot of very severe need projects to pick from.

Sorry, Manker, imo a bad call on your part. Hank never tried to make this a political thread. His concern was that a disaster happened and people needed help. But it has sure turned into a political thread. Sometimes you just get a belly full of it and have to throw some facts and common sense into the mix. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Rose don’t forget Clinton and Gore were supposed Mr. environment and didn’t do a damn thing about the levees for 8 years that they were in office.

---

You can't temper a failing by saying that someone else failed too. You can't justify inaction by saying that someone else did also did nothing.

You're a mechanic, right? If you did a service on a car and the very next day the brakes failed and caused a fatal accident, would you sit back and console yourself that a competitor did likewise.

No, you would condemn yourself for shoddy workmanship.


I have no looks on Bush, but I don't think you'd find him taking that line. Poor show, Hank.

---

You missed the point Manker. Clinton touted himself as being this big environmentalist and what did he do to help? You guys are acting like Bush just invented hurricanes and placing the blame square on his shoulders. I’m not blaming Clinton I’m just saying that he didn’t do anything either.

I definitely didn't miss my own point, Hank.

However, you have. Completely.


Surely you can see what I'm getting at there.

Why does every thread in here turn policital , or black versus white .Why doesn't the new's show a white guy looting a store to provide for his family for a change ?

I know I would be fighting tooth and nail for anything I could get .

In hindsight if it as me struggling to support my family, look out give me a gun your dead if you stand in my way. You can do what you what to me but don't fuck with my family . I'm sure thats how many feel when the chips are played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

I definitely didn't miss my own point, Hank.

However, you have. Completely.


Surely you can see what I'm getting at there.

---

I do Manker. People here act like hurricanes are something new and are quick to point fingers at Bush. They act like he’s been the only President that the U.S. has had and every little thing that goes wrong is his fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

I definitely didn't miss my own point, Hank.

However, you have. Completely.


Surely you can see what I'm getting at there.

---

I do Manker. People here act like hurricanes are something new and are quick to point fingers at Bush. They act like he’s been the only President that the U.S. has had and every little thing that goes wrong is his fault.

---

people warned bush and had a plan to do the job, he slashed the budget for researching and fixing the levees several times. it is his fault.

I just sent 200.00 dollars from my pay, (which was 515.00 dollars) for disaster relief.
My 19 year old sister is in Louisiana helping with relief efforts.

Their are many, who are doing something other than using a horrible situation
for a soapbox, to spout their tired and tedious personal agendas.

Shame, on those who think words speak louder than actions.

bd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brotherdoobie

I just sent 200.00 dollars from my pay, (which was 515.00 dollars) for disaster relief.
My 19 year old sister is in Louisiana helping with relief efforts.

Their are many, who are doing something other than using a horrible situation
for a soapbox, to spout their tired and tedious personal agendas.

Shame, on those who think words speak louder than actions.

bd

---

that's very good of you.


government is supposed to protect the people though. when there's a catastrophic failure that people have been warning about years and could have been prevented. to not take the government to task about this is ignorant, dangerous and stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brotherdoobie

I just sent 200.00 dollars from my pay, (which was 515.00 dollars) for disaster relief.
My 19 year old sister is in Louisiana helping with relief efforts.

Their are many, who are doing something other than using a horrible situation
for a soapbox, to spout their tired and tedious personal agendas.

Shame, on those who think words speak louder than actions.

bd

---

that's very good of you.


government is supposed to protect the people though. when there's a catastrophic failure that people have been warning about years and could have been prevented. to not take the government to task about this is ignorant, dangerous and stupid.

---

I vote my conscience, my wallet and time are reserved for the practical.
Now, is not the time to debate the stupidity of our leadership.

Now...is the time for action.

Peace bd :)

There will be a need for those in authority to be called to account after this is all cleared up, there is also a need for U.S. society as a whole to comprehend what the collective failure shows about the American way of life. So I'm not going to just blame Bush...

Quote:

---

my conscience, my wallet

---

Did the latter help ease the former?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

There will be a need for those in authority to be called to account after this is all cleared up, there is also a need for U.S. society as a whole to comprehend what the collective failure shows about the American way of life. So I'm not going to just blame Bush...

---

I agree with you up until the comma. What follows is not aimed at you, but at what I see happening throughout any thread that deals with America when something go's wrong.


I know I will not say this clearly enough, but......

It seems as if the American public is being held to higher/different standards then the European population.

As I said somewhere in another thread, it is one thing to blame our leaders for particular shortcomings, but you cannot neccessarily blame the population for it as well. I understand we have to be held somewhat accountable because we put the politicians in their jobs in the first place.

I sort of recall another country somewhere off in Europe (one of those small floating countries) that has been giving the US quite a lot of support in areas that its own population claims to not support. How is it that the population does not get held up to the spotlight when things go wrong as well?

After all, the leadership of the small floating country has chosen to support us and by extension (and the fact that the population put them there) is just as at fault as us.

Yeah, I know that the support above is given in another separate situation, but think about what has just happened.

The small floating country may say "but look how we handled the crisis of terrorist attacks in our country. We were right there taking care of bussiness from the very beginning."

Think about what it would have been like if it had covered the whole of your country. The area that this took place in is a large as many countries. Would the population need to be held accountable for all the mistakes perceived or actual that led to more deaths then thought unavoidable because the infrastructure was not up to par in handling such a crisis?

I am not saying that things have gone smoothly. I also am not saying there is no need to look into many issues that have come up as a result of this event. But to continuously treat individuals as if they personally had a hand in the problem and should feel guilty is wrong. To say someone is trying to ease their concience by giving some of their money to try and help is just plain dumb.

I too hope this gets looked into fully and that we make some big changes in how we do things. I said so in the poll I started. We need to look at doing things differently and maybe look at the need to move people back to their homes when this is all over or move them elsewhere.

As Everose said, we have spent a lot of money/resources on rebuilding areas that have had several hurricanes just last year. She asks if it was a mistake to spend the money there or should the levies have been shored up. It is a big decision and apparently the government took a gamble that the levies would be ok for now.

But since they are not, is it right to spend the money it is going to take to rebuild to an even better state of safety, or should we focus some of that on relocation and the rest on making other areas not yet hit by disaster safer.

A lot of things to look into and decide, but place blame where it belongs when this is over and has been fully looked into.

The thing about the money is really a "what's the point". As far as I am aware there is no shortage of funds to deal with the situation, so why would someone send around 40% of their income. How is it supposed to help if there's plenty of money anyway.

Jebus then seems to conjecture that the donation was to ease the chaps own conscience, to make him feel better, rather than any actual assistance it may provide.

It seems a reasonable point to make, I couldn't possibly comment.

I think that donating money for those that can, does help in a way. It is less money (theoretically)that will be needed from the government in the form of taxes.

The money may be there, but that is because the government will take it if it wants it, and maybe from an area equally in need. This then raises the taxes for those who couldn't really afford it in the first place.

Besides, is America really as rich as we claim? Don't we owe a lot of money everywhere and just don't pay because we are "bigger"? I am probably wrong, but it seems as if that is what I have heard/read in the past.

But I guess that is another discussion :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tracydani

I too hope this gets looked into fully and that we make some big changes in how we do things. I said so in the poll I started.

---

Cool, then we agree. Sort of.

I'm going to ignore (but not really) the Europe bit as it didn't make much sense and just seems to be the common defence round here..."Hey, you guys are crap as well". I know.

[QUOTE=Withcheese]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tracydani

I'm going to ignore (but not really) the Europe bit as it didn't make much sense and just seems to be the common defence round here..."Hey, you guys are crap as well". I know.

---

I did say it wouldn't be clear :P

But I am not really saying "Hey, you guys are crap as well", I really do not think that. I just think that standards do not seem the same for everyone.

[QUOTE=tracydani]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

I did say it wouldn't be clear :P

But I am not really saying "Hey, you guys are crap as well", I really do not think that. I just think that standards do not seem the same for everyone.

---

That's probably because you (plural) are perceived as having a superiority complex.

Whilst others kind of look down on you and are puzzled as to what you actually feel superior about.

It's hard for me to comprehend the scale of the disaster area, so it don't like to criticise the relief effort.

However, it's been well known that if a category 4 or above storm headed directly for New Orleans, the levees would fail. I seem to remember last year they thought a storm was heading in that direction, but it veered away at the last minute. That should have been warning enough.

In the UK the Environment Agency has done massive research on the effects of climate change, global warming and rising sea levels on the coastline, and plans have been put into place to either adequately protect the vulnerable areas, or to undertake a "managed retreat", and let the sea reclaim areas that it's not cost-effective to protect, especially on the south coast and East Anglia. This also creates salt marshes and wetland areas which are great for wildlife!

It just appears to me that our Government is alot more environmentally-savvy than thier American counterparts, and they are also more realistic in terms of the way our planet is going to change in the near future.

I just hope this tragedy acts as a wake-up call to the US administration that they can no longer treat the environment with contempt. Scientists will argue that there is no direct link between this accident and climate change, but it does appear that these storms are getting more frequent, and so we are going to be seeing alot more towns around the Gulf turned into match-wood in the coming years.

Even the most powerful nation on earth is no match for the raw power of nature unleashed.

I'm sorry but when I brought up, "Who foresaw that?"..that was for Hank blaming the people that had no means to escape the hurricane.

Bush's main mistake was absorbing FEMA into HLS. There is shit everywhere from fixing bridges to earthquake fortification that needs tending to and it all can't be done. Things need to be weighed against potential consequences.

However, my main concern is the shit I'm hearing about the aftermath and the apparent lack of concern by our President.

I remember a child running between two cars and into the street and was hit by a bus and killed. Everyone wanted to assess blame to the parents, the bus driver and I for one blamed the kid. However, I also looked at the shitty ambulance response time and how it should be fixed.

In my view, our President is overall fuck up and he gets a complete F grade for his tenure.

On a minor point, his inaction before this happened, and on a major point, his inaction afterwards and yes this is a flipflop of my first post 'cause now I know help was a rearing to go and the major help, it seems, was put into a fucking holding pattern and until the savior Jebus Bush came to have fucking photo ops even during a conversation with a grieving woman!!!

Bush even put a longtime friend in charge of FEMA with no fucking experience.

Cronyism

'Tragedy often becomes a stage for the best of human character. But it seems as if this tragedy is also destined to be a stage for the worst, a spotlight on the divisions that have lately grown so much wider between us.'
Leonard Pitts, Miami Herald

Well, Busyman, I have read a lot on FEMA lately and it's absorption into the Homeland Security Department......a decision made by the Bush Administration. There are pros and cons to this decision, though, aren't there? How dare Bush 'let' this hurricane happen while these two departments are being blended! I have to wonder what would be said if we had two strong tax supported agencies down there, each trying to lead the rescue efforts. I can hear the complaints about Bush supporting two agencies, when combining these agencies would have been a lot more tax efficient.

tracydani has raised some interesting issues. I would like to go with that and add a few things.

I would like to believe those that aren't American on this board have America's best interest at heart on this forum and elsewhere. I would really like to believe that. So I listen to what they say. But the more I listen, the more my hopes are dashed. I see a lot of flat out criticism with no real understanding in the differences of our size, taxing systems, and governments. Some of you realize this and that is always refreshing to me, and I appreciate it.

We have our City/County Governments. Since 9/11, our Federal Government has been pouring money right and left into grants for emergency preparedness at the City level.....county and state, too, but the City level is where the responsibility starts. No one can tell me that New Orleans didn't get their fair share of this money. What did they do with it? Did they have a system set up where buses were made available for all those who did not have the means to leave the city were given it when an emergency like this was imminent? Does it not make sense that with their knowing their levee's would not hold up during a level 5 Hurricane that this would be their first priority? Money has been given from the federal government to municipal govenments to enable them to plan and equip for such disasters. Where did this money go in New Orleans? And even if they had such a plan, which in my mind they should have.........did they also forsee in this plan they may need armed guards to force people to leave for their own good? Many of these people refused to leave. They have had a lot of Hurricane scares in the past that didn't pan out. Lot of variables there......but the City should have had a plan. They should have worked out these variables.

Counties/Parishes receive Federal funds for this planning, also. Usually what happens there is the biggest City in the county/parish ends up benefitting the most. So now New Orleans has a lot of Parish federal funds to add to their City federal funds. What was done with this money?

Each State receives a hunk of Federal funds, too. A lot of states are richer than others because of natural resources present in their states. Lousianna, from what I have read, has a large abundance of natural resources in the way of oil. This state has tremendous amounts of oil that is being harvested, so to speak. This oil has brought billions of dollars in the way of tax revenue to this state. What was this revenue spent on? I would like to see an accounting of it. What I am seeing now is that they have reaped a lot of tax money off this, let the removal of this oil destabilize the very ground they live on and are now seeing the results of this raping of their land. But it is all the federal governments fault? :01:

Quite frankly, I have never seen the federal government as my savior. I do any planning keeping this in mind. The responsibility starts with myself, my local and state government, and then on a national scale, my federal government. How do we make the jump from self responsibility to federal government responsibility for self so quickly and so all encompassing?

With this big of a disaster, hindsight should start at the 'responsibility for self' level. For anyone that chose to live in an unstable area like this, an area built so far below sea level, why had they not beat down the doors of their local government and put the pressure where it would help the most? Why did they not demand to know what provisions were being made for their evacuation beforehand? Even become involved in the emergency planning?

I get a little leery of every thing that happens being blamed on Bush. Probably not for the reasons you think. I don't care for the man for more reasons than one. But it sickens me to see that those that rant and rave and throw every little thing that happens in the world squarely on his shoulders have in their unintentional way given the man himself undeserved 'God-like' qualities.

It is not my way to point fingers and place blame when we are in the midst of a disaster such as this. It makes me feel sick to do so. ONLY because of the tendency in this thread to once again bash Bush again do I do so. Criminetly I am sick of hearing his name and seeing the godlike qualities given him. And I have to add....it really isn't his supporters that give him thus.

Does it never end? Now I am reading some think it is God's will, this hurricane.

Once again quoting Leonard Pitts, Miami Herald:

Memo to all these nitwits: it was a hurricane, not God's stamp of approval for your small-mindedness and hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

The thing about the money is really a "what's the point". As far as I am aware there is no shortage of funds to deal with the situation, so why would someone send around 40% of their income. How is it supposed to help if there's plenty of money anyway.

Jebus then seems to conjecture that the donation was to ease the chaps own conscience, to make him feel better, rather than any actual assistance it may provide.

It seems a reasonable point to make, I couldn't possibly comment.

---

I know the point you are making here, JPaul. I understand where you are coming from.

But :D

We have thousands of displaced New Orleans in shelters in other states without anything but the clothes on their backs to their names. Money and work being given will help these people. For those of us unable to be there,, to dig right in and be physically present to assist, it may ease our conscience a bit to send money, but said money should not be made that light of. It is needed and appreciated.

Wow Rose that’s quite a post. I’m glad that I read all posts before responding because you seemed to have pretty much made every point that I was going to.

I’m coming to the conclusion that people blame Bush for everything because they are still mad about losing the election in 2000. They are still bitter and so mad that they don’t know what to do with them selves. So every action that Bush takes they take the complete opposite side no matter how ridiculous it may be.

People here act like Bush is the one who is in control of the state also. It’s state and local officials who have demonstrated just how incompetent they are, and how poor their leadership skills are. The fact that the Governor had not called up more national guardsmen before the storm is pitiful. She saw this thing coming in for 2 or 3 days and didn’t do anything but issue a mandatory evacuation for the city that a lot of people didn’t listen to. This is a melt down at the state and local official level and they sat around with the thumbs up their asses and bitched and moaned because it was all Bush’s fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Wow Rose that’s quite a post. I’m glad that I read all posts before responding because you seemed to have pretty much made every point that I was going to.

I’m coming to the conclusion that people blame Bush for everything because they are still mad about losing the election in 2000. They are still bitter and so mad that they don’t know what to do with them selves. So every action that Bush takes they take the complete opposite side no matter how ridiculous it may be.

People here act like Bush is the one who is in control of the state also. It’s state and local officials who have demonstrated just how incompetent they are, and how poor their leadership skills are. The fact that the Governor had not called up more national guardsmen before the storm is pitiful. She saw this thing coming in for 2 or 3 days and didn’t do anything but issue a mandatory evacuation for the city that a lot of people didn’t listen to. This is a melt down at the state and local official level and they sat around with the thumbs up their asses and bitched and moaned because it was all Bush’s fault.

---

Your post would have teeth if you didn't try to blame the state officials by their lonesome.

My thing is not what happened beforehand. It is it's aftermath. I read that there were folks ready to go but waiting on Bush's say so. Wtf?!!!

I also know Bush can't control hurricane's. However, it amazes me that for the man in charge, he can't seem to quite get it right. So far, the only thing seems to be Afghanistan, which was a no brainer. Everything else has been less than redeemable.