NOLA - 2 years later

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Sugar08

Ok, why are people overlooking the fact that these people PAID TAXES and many still are? Were they not "insuring" others across the nation who received federal assistance for other natural disasters?

OK, but people who live in, say, the Pacific Northwest are paying in with a disproportional chance of getting anything back - it's not an equal pool, it runs downhill toward places with more risk. Turning the government into a giant insurer sounds like a recipe for disaster, and something that's well outside the bounds of what the government was founded for. Also, I'm not judging NOLA citizens for asking for the money or taking what they're offered, just saying that the concept seems flawed to me inherently.

Originally Posted by Sugar08

Also, it's not a matter of affording insurance. People based their decisions of whether or not to purchase a policy on federal government reports.

I've never heard this before this thread, and it's very interesting - are there any particular reports I should read to fill myself in?

Is the concept that the government intentionally misled people in a fashion that prevented them from buying insurance?

Originally Posted by Sugar08

Why does it seem this way to you? It doesn't seem this way to me. I haven't had the opportunity to go back, but my best friend spent several weeks in NO for a journalism workshop and said it's pretty much a ghost town in a lot of the city. There are many, many places where it looks like the hurricane hit yesterday. "A helping hand" isn't going to do the trick.

I wasn't clear here, so I'll fill in some more - I think we go past the "helping hand" stage when we do anything beyond the most efficient and expedient solution to help people get on their feet. For this reason, I'm sure many people aren't even getting the 'helping hand' benefit (such as the ghost town areas), but on the whole the plan seems somewhat ostentatious. Wouldn't the simplest solution be to leave the areas with the worst damage alone, give funds to move people elsewhere (not even another city, but out of these areas) and fund things like jobs programs?

I'm certainly no disaster relief expert, but the desire to rebuild then upgrade seems like a terrible plan in terms of efficiency - thus, it must be catering to something beyond just getting people back on their feet. There is no requirement that anyone be allowed to live in a certain part of New Orleans, and it's not the government's job to guarantee that, right?

If a "helping hand" won't do the trick . . . what will? And why should that excessive amount of effort go into it? I've been to NO exactly twice in my life, and loved it both times, but I'm trying to get to where we talk about exactly what the government's duties entail, rather than wishcasting a return to a pre-Katrina state.

Originally Posted by Sugar08

It's not about insurance, it's about responsibility. These people are U.S. citizens who are unable to make something out of nothing, and people living 1500+ miles away seem to be having trouble comprehending that. The purpose of the government is to protect the citizens, and right now the federal government (as well as local and state) is failing.

If it's about responsibility, you'll have to fill me in on how the government is responsible - unless you mean fulfilling their responsibility to the citizens of NO, which makes sense but seems like a completely different discussion wholly unrelated to the point I was making.

I agree that people cannot make something from nothing - that's my whole point, that the effort should be made to give people enough to make something . . . I just wonder if we're not giving more, and whether there are better ways to handle this sort of thing.