Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The government was overwhelmed because of direct neglect by the Bush Administration. It didn't have to be this bad. We could have been much better prepared...but that costs money and requires sacrifice. This administration cut taxes on the rich and the poor drowned in response.Tgace said:Hurricane Katrina once again showed the world that government, be it state or federal, is fallible and indeed can be overwhelmed..
You have it so easy. You have no idea how hard it is to this when you grow up in poverty. The amount of priviledge the average middle class person in this country has when compared to the people who are dying is staggering. This little rant is nothing more then a "let them eat cake..."Tgace said:Depend on yourself. Get educated. Get smart. Get personal resources. Get off of "public dependence". That is the lesson of Katrina.
Tom, a toast to you. I have to give you credit for standing behind the courage of your convictions.Tgace said:As to my "privilege". I went to public school. Went through college on loans with no monetary support from my parents beyond using their washing machine and living with them on breaks. Worked, worked, worked and worked. Joined the military to get some money, benefits and gradually managed to work my way into my current job. What did I do that anybody else couldnt have accomplished? I had no scholarships, no programs, technically lived in "poverty" for a number of years. Had to resort to medicade and food assistance when my firstborn arrived. There is no fate except that which we make for ourselves.
And you make a lot of ***umptions.
michaeledward said:Tom, a toast to you. I have to give you credit for standing behind the courage of your convictions.
If this would have happened under Clintons watch things would have been different? Regans? Carters? New Orleans was under a threat only for the last 2 terms?upnorthkyosa said:The government was overwhelmed because of direct neglect by the Bush Administration. It didn't have to be this bad. We could have been much better prepared...but that costs money and requires sacrifice. This administration cut taxes on the rich and the poor drowned in response.
Oddly, James Lee Witt actually had some experience in emergency management.Tgace said:If this would have happened under Clintons watch things would have been different? Regans? Carters? New Orleans was under a threat only for the last 2 terms?
And the up here, the odds are Ill freeze before Ill drown.
I should compare notes with you. I think you would be surprised.Tgace said:As to my "privilege". I went to public school. Went through college on loans with no monetary support from my parents beyond using their washing machine and living with them on breaks. Worked, worked, worked and worked. Joined the military to get some money+benefits and gradually managed to work my way into my current job. What did I do that anybody else couldnt have accomplished? I had no scholarships, no programs (besides free lunch at school), technically lived in "poverty" for a number of years. Had to resort to medicade and food assistance when my firstborn arrived. There is no fate except that which we make for ourselves.
And you make a lot of ***umptions.
Ya, the mindset of "We don't have to help ourselves, because the federal government should take care of us" that is perpetuated by people who would rather us have a socialist/communist government.upnorthkyosa said:Blame spreads thinly in this case. President Bush, surely doesn't deserve all of it. However, as I've said before, the mindset is the problem.
So what exactly is your solution to this? That the federal government should step in and just give money to the people need it or claim to need it? Until all people are up to a certain level? Where should the money come from? From me? I am sure that I am much better off than many, and I am thankful for that, but does that mean that a poertion of my income should be taken away and given to somebody else? That seems to be what you are getting at.I should compare notes with you. I think you would be surprised.
In the richest country in the world, I've seen people freeze to death. I've seen kids living in card board boxes. I've watched people starve and I've gone hungry myself. Some people really have no idea how bad it is for a great many people.
The very fact that you are able to do the above is a testament to the stability in your life. For others, I know for a fact that it is not possible to do what you did without a lot of help. And that is no assumption.
I work with the urban poor. I know what their lives are like. I know what their families are like and I am keenly aware of the resources they have. For the poor of New Orleans, the support, the family, and the resources to leave were not present.
We can exert a certain amount of control over our lives, but there is always an environmental component. And no matter how hard this administration tries, this rediculous "opportunity society" will never erase that. The events of New Orleans and future events like it will continually thrust back into Americas face... __________________
Gee, that's almost like saying 'Pre-planning should have been done.'.ginshun said:And saying that the National Guard and FEMA should have been in place in New Orleans BEFORE the storm hit is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. If they had been there they would be victims along with everyone else. You can't put rescure crews in the middle of the storm and then expect them to immediately spring into action as soon as the rain stops.
Well, I'm not saying that either ... what I am saying is that when the scope of the disaster becomes so big that the Major News Network Anchors are travelling from hotels in SUV's that require armed guards to threaten people trying to escape the floods, somebody should start moving something. Specifically FEMA should start moving more than 1,300 agents into place .. cuz that ain't enough.ginshun said:Some of you seem to think that the federal govnt should have been in NO before the storm enforcing a manditory evacuation, even though they were not asked to by the state or local governments. Who was supposed to make that descision? Bush? Is that really the kind of president and the federal govnt to have? Ones that deside for itself when to declare a police state, move into a city and forcibly remove people from their homes? Whithout any say from the local govnts?
Sorry, no cable.michaeledward said:Check out Brian Williams this afternoon on Last Nights 'The Daily Show'.
The first link has been removed.Shorin Ryuu said:More evidence on the culpability of the Louisiana state government and the city of New Orleans.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200509\NAT20050907a.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462_pf.html
Both address the ridiculous claims about how the cuts in funding were the cause of the disaster. Do yourselves a favor and read both of them.
No, I didn't provide helpful snippets. Sometimes they are useful, but other times they reduce the debate to sound-byte quoting.
Yeah ... and it could be that the truth hurts.ginshun said:Sorry, no cable.
Even if I had it, I don't think that 'The Daily Show' (while quite hilarious) is what I would consider a real credible or unbiased news source.
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1
The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
But the living conditions of the average poor person should not be taken to mean that all poor Americans live without hardship. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. Roughly a third of poor households do face material hardships such as overcrowding, intermittent food shortages, or difficulty obtaining medical care. However, even these households would be judged to have high living standards in comparison to most other people in the world.
In that case, you should be well aware of how the culpability lies in the local government regarding the spending and funds for flood-related activities.michaeledward said:The first link has been removed.
I have been aware of the information in the second link for some days .. .
You fail to see the point of the article. It isn't that Louisiana receives more money for flood control, but for all civic-work projects than does California. The problem is not a lack of money at all whatsoever. They had plenty of money for funding:"the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were designed to protect against a Category 3 storm, and the levees that failed were already completed projects."
"But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon."
We thought all the projects were important -- not just levees," Breaux said. "Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but navigation projects were critical to our economic survival."
Overall, Army Corps funding has remained relatively constant for decades, despite the "Program Growth Initiative" launched by agency generals in 1999 without telling their civilian bosses in the Clinton administration. The Bush administration has proposed cuts in the Corps budget, and has tried to shift the agency's emphasis from new construction to overdue maintenance. But most of those proposals have died quietly on Capitol Hill, and the administration has not fought too hard to revive them.