Gustav

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd like to see local governments assume the maintenance of stuff like this, but I recognize that's not the way it is.

Even still, just because a federal levee system breaks does not mean the federal government is responsible for underwriting what essentially amounts to flood insurance for all New Orleans residents.

A hurricane is a force of nature. As a homeowner, you can't have a reasonable expectation that:

A) any man-made levee system will hold up to a boat that breaks loose and crashes into it, and

B) the federal government will pay to rebuild my house

You need to have flood insurance in that situation. If you don't, too bad.

What exactly are you proposing the federal government should be responsible for? If trailers, food, and water are not enough, what in your opinion is enough?

Funny how we can fund billions of dollars in a war effort but we've got people still living in trailers 3 years after a national emergency. Something about our gov'ts priorities just doesn't sit right with me. The Fed oversaw an inadequate levee system that they clearly knew was at risk for an epic disaster, and when that disaster strikes some trailers and basic necessities is the satisfactory response for you? Really?

Go get some flood insurance? Apparently there's good reason why some didn't have it or were underinsured.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Funny how we can fund billions of dollars in a war effort but we've got people still living in trailers 3 years after a national emergency. Something about our gov'ts priorities just doesn't sit right with me. The Fed oversaw an inadequate levee system that they clearly knew was at risk for an epic disaster, and when that disaster strikes some trailers and basic necessities is the satisfactory response for you? Really?

Go get some flood insurance? Apparently there's good reason why some didn't have it or were underinsured.

You didn't answer my question. What would constitute an adequate response from the federal government?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You didn't answer my question. What would constitute an adequate response from the federal government?

I don't know exactly but what's been done to date hasn't been enough IMO.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I don't know exactly but what's been done to date hasn't been enough IMO.

OK, but I guess since you say you're not sure, you're not suggesting the federal goverment rebuild the homes and businesses?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

OK, but I guess since you say you're not sure, you're not suggesting the federal goverment rebuild the homes and businesses?

I'm not saying they need to rebuild everything to where it was previously, I'm just saying I think more could be done and the progress that has been made over the last 3 years probably isn't sufficient.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm not saying they need to rebuild everything to where it was previously, I'm just saying I think more could be done and the progress that has been made over the last 3 years probably isn't sufficient.

You're starting to sound like Barack Obama, incredibly vague.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You're starting to sound like Barack Obama, incredibly vague.

Without properly reseaching the issue I'm not going to sit here and try to say that X and Y must be done. I'm not pretending to be an expert. Not that you are... I'm just saying.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You're starting to sound like Barack Obama, incredibly vague.

Making an informed decision on this topic is just above Matty's pay grade, that's all.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Funny how we can fund billions of dollars in a war effort but we've got people still living in trailers 3 years after a national emergency. Something about our gov'ts priorities just doesn't sit right with me. The Fed oversaw an inadequate levee system that they clearly knew was at risk for an epic disaster, and when that disaster strikes some trailers and basic necessities is the satisfactory response for you? Really?

Go get some flood insurance? Apparently there's good reason why some didn't have it or were underinsured.

Not to change the subject, but it's a war effort we're now winning, and which has progressed far enough along for the government to begin brokering deals with the Iraqi's to bring the troops home.

And what brought about the change from dismal failure and floundering to success?

More troops, not less.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Not to change the subject, but it's a war effort we're now winning, and which has progressed far enough along for the government to begin brokering deals with the Iraqi's to bring the troops home.

And what brought about the change from dismal failure and floundering to success?

More troops, not less.

Interesting concept. So by dumping more money and resources into something you get better results? Go figure. How about trying that out in NO?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Interesting concept. So by dumping more money and resources into something you get better results? Go figure. How about trying that out in NO?

In my opinion, the results - to date - in NO have been adequate. The results in Iraq, prior to the troop surge, were woefully inadequate.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

In my opinion, the results - to date - in NO have been adequate. The results in Iraq, prior to the troop surge, were woefully inadequate.

Well I guess that's where we agree to disagree and move on.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Well I guess that's where we agree to disagree and move on.

You're right, it comes down to a fundamental disagreement as to what the federal government is responsible for providing to its citizens in a time of need.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Funny how we can fund billions of dollars in a war effort but we've got people still living in trailers 3 years after a national emergency. Something about our gov'ts priorities just doesn't sit right with me. The Fed oversaw an inadequate levee system that they clearly knew was at risk for an epic disaster, and when that disaster strikes some trailers and basic necessities is the satisfactory response for you? Really?

Go get some flood insurance? Apparently there's good reason why some didn't have it or were underinsured.

So your opinion is that if your bank does not force you to buy the protection then its not needed. If you own a home I hope you did not by a policy that just coveres what the mortgage Co says they require because if you have a loss your in for a big surprise. Also by the fact it was considered a lower risk area would make the flood ins policy run around $300.00 in premium per year.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So your opinion is that if your bank does not force you to buy the protection then its not needed. If you own a home I hope you did not by a policy that just coveres what the mortgage Co says they require because if you have a loss your in for a big surprise. Also by the fact it was considered a lower risk area would make the flood ins policy run around $300.00 in premium per year.

They weren't legally required to have coverage and they were deemed to be in a low risk area... you see no problem with that? In the end it's up to the homeowner to evaluate their own risk level but I just have a hard time passing the buck completely to them based on the bad info they were basing their decision on.