NOLA - 2 years later

[DaemonSeid]

Bush asking for more cash to waste

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070829...s_070829152140

[KSig RC]

I don't really want to side with Kevin here at all, but I do have a question - if these people can't get/afford insurance, then aren't the citizens who live elsewhere effectively "insuring" the area through tax dollars?

Why is this something the government should have anything to do with?

Disaster funds are one thing - getting people back onto their feet with some assistance is a great idea, and a necessary duty of government. Doesn't it seem like the NO funding requests are going far beyond this, though, and toward propping people up rather than extending a helping hand?

Additionally, why do we act like insurance is some sort of right? That undermines what insurance really is supposed to be: pooling risk among a group. Insurance in this nation is beyond F-ed, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend the concept is something totally different.

EDIT: Daemon, seriously guy, don't you get why those things are not at all related to each other? You're beating a dead horse here. Start a new thread if you really think NO funding is being quashed by the war effort, and show some evidence of that.

[Sugar08]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't really want to side with Kevin here at all, but I do have a question - if these people can't get/afford insurance, then aren't the citizens who live elsewhere effectively "insuring" the area through tax dollars?

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?

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.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why is this something the government should have anything to do with?

See above.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Disaster funds are one thing - getting people back onto their feet with some assistance is a great idea, and a necessary duty of government. Doesn't it seem like the NO funding requests are going far beyond this, though, and toward propping people up rather than extending a helping hand?

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.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Additionally, why do we act like insurance is some sort of right? That undermines what insurance really is supposed to be: pooling risk among a group. Insurance in this nation is beyond F-ed, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend the concept is something totally different.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't really want to side with Kevin here at all, but I do have a question - if these people can't get/afford insurance, then aren't the citizens who live elsewhere effectively "insuring" the area through tax dollars?

Why is this something the government should have anything to do with?

Disaster funds are one thing - getting people back onto their feet with some assistance is a great idea, and a necessary duty of government. Doesn't it seem like the NO funding requests are going far beyond this, though, and toward propping people up rather than extending a helping hand?

Additionally, why do we act like insurance is some sort of right? That undermines what insurance really is supposed to be: pooling risk among a group. Insurance in this nation is beyond F-ed, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend the concept is something totally different.

EDIT: Daemon, seriously guy, don't you get why those things are not at all related to each other? You're beating a dead horse here. Start a new thread if you really think NO funding is being quashed by the war effort, and show some evidence of that.

Im sorry I must be 'stupid'

Bush paying lipservice in NOLA on the same day while asking for money from Congress that the US may not have so it can be spent elsewhere on top of the billions already being wasted and you need me to show evidence....?

They are NOT related?

Ok.

Let me say this again slowly...

You
Don't
See
These
Stories
Coming
Out of
Florida


and it gets hit regularly by hurricanes....and when the governor asks for money...he gets it....

and we arent even gonna get into the wildfires that seem to be happening yearly out in the midwest.

So WHY 2 years later and NOLA still looks a hot mess?

Reading in between the lines is indeed Fundamental

[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.

[KSig RC]

Sorry for the double-post, but the last one was long . . .

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Im sorry I must be 'stupid'

Bush paying lipservice in NOLA on the same day while asking for money from Congress that the US may not have so it can be spent elsewhere on top of the billions already being wasted and you need me to show evidence....?

They are NOT related?

Ok.

Let me say this again slowly...

You
Don't
See
These
Stories
Coming
Out of
Florida


and it gets hit regularly by hurricanes....and when the governor asks for money...he gets it....

and we arent even gonna get into the wildfires that seem to be happening yearly out in the midwest.

So WHY 2 years later and NOLA still looks a hot mess?

Reading in between the lines is indeed Fundamental

Don't be a dick about this - how absurd. Let me give you a similarly douchey response:

Say
what
you
really
mean.

You make innuendos about the difference between NO and FL, but give no real idea of comparison - I'm pretty sure Katrina did more damage to NO than any hurricane has ever done to a comparable city in FL. The freaking city was largely uninhabitable afterwards. You don't see FL saying this because the comparison probably isn't valid.

So what are you really implying? A racial bias? A preference toward his brother's state? Hell, these things might be accurate, but if that's the discussion, discuss that.

As far as comparing the war, there's zero evidence that the war has prevented any work on the city of New Orleans. There's no evidence that stopping the war tomorrow would lead to significant changes in New Orleans.

Just because the money for the war is misspent, it doesn't mean money is being taken from other places - this is simplified, obviously, but the concept is deficit spending. The US Government has probably made massive mistakes regarding rebuilding New Orleans, but these mistakes exist independent of the war effort. Argue that you would rather have that money for NO if you want, but don't act like I am the retard for asking you for actual discussion and support for your views.

Sugar08 is a great example for arguing your side with actual information, instead of inferring that I'm the simpleton. I guarantee you I am not.

[Sugar08]

First off, thanks for the intelligent response. I appreciate the discourse. Also, I apologize for the length in advance.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

It is flawed, but it's the best that can be done right now. The U.S. is a collective, of sorts, and while currently, New Orleans may seem like a drain on resources, in a few years it may very well be another city across the country in the same boat. Not to sound completely holistic or anything, but I think that everything gets balanced out eventually. Take the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980, for example. More than a billion (not accounting for inflation) was spent by the government (and people in other parts of the nation who pay taxes), and while the death toll was relatively low, it was devastating to personal property.

And this is where I cry foul. It's impossible to ignore that most, not all, of the people affected by Katrina in the city of New Orleans are black and poor... we can't say the same for the people in Washington State.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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?

You can find the information in this article. I don't think the government intentionally misled the people. I think the government underestimated (I don't know the intent) and citizens unfairly suffered.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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?

True, and I agree that this may be driven out of nostalgia for the wonderful city that existed before the hurricane. And while the plan may not be the most efficient, it's certainly more efficient than what's currently happening: very little.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

That's exactly what I meant. And I think it's exactly related to your point, which, if I recall correctly, was "why should the government get involved?" Because it's the responsibility of any government to do all that it can to bring it's citizens through a disaster. Our opinions differ on what form that responsibility should take.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

There have to be, but unfortunately, I think the people running things aren't much better informed than we are. The utter destruction of a major city isn't something with which our government has much experience, so to expect the most efficient plan is probably expecting too much.

[SWTXBelle]

Full disclosure - My father is a cousin of Huey Long. I've had family in New Orleans and LA forever. My husband's great -grandfather sculpted many of the beautiful monuments you go see in the cities of the dead, and his grandmother sang at the Court of Two Sisters. I love the city.

And I'm tired of everyone assuming that the only people affected by Katrina are the poor and uninsured. Insurance companies have run riot over claims - playing fast and loose with definitions of what constitutes wind damage, and what is water. Many thousands of people from all over the LA and Miss. coast are displaced, and found out that their insurance company was willing to let them hang out to dry. I know of many natives who wish to return, but have been unable because of the lack of basic services and security. These taxpayers are, I think, entitled to running water, electricity, and some measure of safety. But they can't get it. Some of them are still wrestling with their insurance companies, two years later. And until the engineering is taken care of, who wants to put themselves at the mercy of the Army Corps. of Engineers?
I've written everyone I can think of, from Oprah to Ray Nagin, with the idea that many of those who were poor and in government housing and wish to return should be allowed to as part of a works program. Teach them construction skills, and not only do you solve the labour shortage, you give them a means of pulling themselves out of the poverty they were mired in.They can support their families, who will in turn support the businesses that will make the community thrive. And this would work all along the Gulf Coast. It doesn't have to be a government program - private industry could do it. There are many small private programs that are working to bring New Orleans and her sister coastal cities back.
The government housing projects there were a festering sore that the government chose to ignore until they could no longer. Those people in the Superdome were following the instructions given to them by their leaders - many of them could not evacuate, and the city and state failed them by not evacuating them when they could. Anyone else recall the shots of yards of school buses, empty and flooded, which could have been used to evacuate people?
We need New Orleans for many reasons - as a port at the mouth of the Mississippi, as the spiritual and cultural home to so many different groups, and, YES, because of the heritage and history it contains. Do I expect the government to do it all? Hell,no - I just want them to provide the same level of infrastructure every other citizen in the U.S. has a right to expect, and I want them to straighten up the engineering nightmare that THEY put into place. And then I want them to get the hell out of the way, so the citizens of New Orleans can shine again.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

And I'm tired of everyone assuming that the only people affected by Katrina are the poor and uninsured. Insurance companies have run riot over claims - playing fast and loose with definitions of what constitutes wind damage, and what is water. Many thousands of people from all over the LA and Miss. coast are displaced, and found out that their insurance company was willing to let them hang out to dry. I know of many natives who wish to return, but have been unable because of the lack of basic services and security. These taxpayers are, I think, entitled to running water, electricity, and some measure of safety. But they can't get it. Some of them are still wrestling with their insurance companies, two years later. And until the engineering is taken care of, who wants to put themselves at the mercy of the Army Corps. of Engineers?
We need New Orleans for many reasons - as a port at the mouth of the Mississippi, as the spiritual and cultural home to so many different groups, and, YES, because of the heritage and history it contains. Do I expect the government to do it all? Hell,no - I just want them to provide the same level of infrastructure every other citizen in the U.S. has a right to expect, and I want them to straighten up the engineering nightmare that THEY put into place. And then I want them to get the hell out of the way, so the citizens of New Orleans can shine again.

Just wanted it repeated... Well said.

My sentiments exactly...

Everyone makes money off of NOLA from food to music, a cultural stronghold in America, then a Natural Disaster that caused piss poor levee design to have a complete enginneering failure that caused a flood. Then this comcominant disaster annihilated a corrupt local and state government and added an inept Fed government who should have taken over the reigns the minute the determined that crazy thing was headed in that direction...

Watching live on TV, just made me question my birthland and my birth right and I was not involved in anyway...

The several large insurance companies have FAILED their insurers in NOLA. Nationwide was one of them. They had issues that because the hurricane itself did not actually cause the damage, then flood insurance by storm surge would not apply. But if you have lost your entire house are you basically telling these people, "Go F Yourself?"

Then, you get and pay your tax bills from the feds and the state.

That is just a double-whammy and it is not right.

Yes, we should be proud to foot some of this bill because it is about CITIZENRY and being a part of the United States.