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?

[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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Good point. That's a strong argument for the taxpayer's obligation to fix the levees and keep the ports open.

But not for rebuilding homes.

And that's an area we agree on. If it's profitable to live and work there (even with the storms), then the people who wish to make a living there will make it work. If it's not, even with government assistance as to the levees, then the business will migrate upstream.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic.

So are you saying they have made satisfactory progress to date?

I am saying the expectations need to be reasonably aligned. I am not there and don't know what it is like firsthand. I do know plenty of progress has been made. Maybe not enough but again I don't know. I do know expecting our government to undertake a project like this and achieve marketable success in 3 years is ridiculous. The bigger question is whether there is a good plan and whether they are sticking to it.

[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.

[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

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?

[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

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

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.

[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.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

And that's an area we agree on. If it's profitable to live and work there (even with the storms), then the people who wish to make a living there will make it work. If it's not, even with government assistance as to the levees, then the business will migrate upstream.

I think that's the most important thing. The problem in NOLA isn't universal. It's a rich vs. poor situation. New Orleans, like most cities has a pretty visible class system. And the people who are still without help are the ones who do not have a lot of money. Most of the rich people live either on the outskirts like uptown or in the more touristy version of the city. Each of which are better protected that places like the 9th ward.

That said, I have a friend from Slidell (a district of NO that was hit hard). He told me that they are back in their home. He didn't say when, but he gutted what needed to be gutted with a couple of his friends and they rebuilt what needed rebuilding. He didn't say whether he had trouble, but I know many people had issues getting their power turned on in their homes. Many of the electric companies tried to charge citizens for the time that they were out of power, that's flat out wrong.

I am personally considering moving to New Orleans because I've never to be any place like it in my entire life. The French Quarter, uptown, Garden District, all of that is amazing. You just can't move that to some other location. I would be heart broken if they just decide to abandon the city of New Orleans. The levees are federally built, and they're only built to stand up to a Cat 3. The federal government needs to do a better job. There are federally built levees all across the country and I don't hear anyone suggest that because some of middle America has levees around their homes, that they should move.

As for the suggestion that people who are hit by multiple natural disasters should abandon their homes...that's just retarded. That would constitute the majority of the United States. The majority of the southern U.S. is hit by Hurricanes or threatened by tornadoes, California is always experiencing earthquakes, hell we face hurricanes and tornadoes where we live. It's naive to think that we should all just move to somewhere where nothing can possibly happen. It's not naive however, to assume that when the government institutes a system to protect you, you should hold them to their word. I'm not saying that the government should rebuild homes, but they should make strong levees.