Rebuild New Orleans?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I thought that this was an interesting piece from last night's Glenn Beck showgram:

With the two-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina coming up this Wednesday, honesty might be a good time -- might be a good time to spring it on you right now. I read an account of the aftermath of the storm, and here it is. "It looks like a massive shipwreck. Everything that the water has carried in is in there. It`s going to be cleaned out, alligators, moccasins, God knows what lives in the surrounding swamps has now been flushed literally into the metropolitan area, and they can`t get out, because they`re inside a bowl now. No water to drink, no water to use for sanitation purposes. The biggest toxic waste dump in the world is now the city of New Orleans because of what has happened."

Here`s the real story tonight. That wasn`t a description of Katrina`s aftermath; that was actually a prediction. It was made by the czar of public emergencies for Jefferson Parish three full years before the storm hit. The same article said the scientists put the odds of a major hurricane wiping out New Orleans in the next 50 years at one in six. Guess what? The odds are still one and six, since the storm they were predicting hasn`t even occurred yet. Remember, Katrina was only a Category 3 at landfall; these scientists are talking about a Category 5.

So what do we do, America? The article from 2002 said that some scientists believe that a major storm would mean, "the city would have to be abandoned, bulldoze the rubble, rebuild some place else," end quote. They summed it up by asking this: "Should the government spend billions of dollars to try to protect a city from a disaster that might not happen?"

Now that a preview of that disaster has happened, the debate has shifted to whether the government should spend billions of dollars to insure homeowners who want to rebuild in high-risk areas but can`t get access to private insurance. The answer is, what, are you nuts? You want to take the emotion and the politics out of this? Please just use some common sense for a second.

It is obvious that rebuilding, especially with Scotch tape and chewing gum, which is I think what they`re using down there now, rebuilding in a bowl that is sinking into the ocean is a horribly, horribly bad long-term decision. While I know this is not the politically correct thing to say, like I said at the top, it`s the honest thing.

This is the week somebody needs to finally say it: It is not the federal government`s obligation to defy all laws of capitalism and insure people against making stupid decisions. You wouldn`t ask the government to insure your new home on the side of Mt. St. Helen`s, would you, or your shoddily built new apartment building directly on top of the San Andreas fault. There`s no difference here.

If you want to roll the dice and hope the one-in-six odds don`t come up, then it`s your right. But the worst happens, it`s your responsibility. This taxpayer says, "Enough!"

[SABRSox]

Glenn Beck not wanting to spend money on all those black people in New Orleans. How shocking.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

What a surprise that you would absolutely discount any logic and play the race card. Now that's a shocker!

[SABRSox]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/16/beck-oreo/

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Meh. :shrug:

[SABRSox]

Whatever. I guess you're the one guy left watching Glenn Beck. I'm surprised they keep him on with those dismal, dismal ratings.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

He still outdraws Keith Overbite. Then again, who doesn't

[SABRSox]

He still outdraws Keith Overbite. Then again, who doesn't
I'm sure this is not true.

[1951Campbell]

This thread is a new record for getting off-topic.

[infinite1]

New Orleans should be rebuilt as the New Amsterdam

Your thoughts ???

[SABRSox]

This thread is a new record for getting off-topic.
I felt I had to debunk Beck's credibility on this topic, considering he's a biased racist.

The answer to the original post is, "This should have been done already." Brownie did a heck of a job, didn't he?

That New Orleans continues to rot is disgusting. I can't decide what is worse, Bush's War Crimes or his Katrina bungle.

[infinite1]

New Orleans as New Amsterdam would be great

No need to go to Germany... Start smoking pot on the streets, get legal hookers.. it can be a whole new party town

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I felt I had to debunk Beck's credibility on this topic, considering he's a biased racist.




You failed miserably... :rolleyes:

[SABRSox]

Here's all you ever need to know about Glenn Beck, and how ignorant, racist and inflammatory he is:

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/glennbeck

[maurice]

the city would have to be abandoned, bulldoze the rubble, rebuild some place else

This is dumb. You certainly can argue that the US government should not pay to make NO a better version of what it was before Katrina, but you cannot reasonably argue that we should abandon the mouth of the Mississippi and the surrounding resources.

Some restoration of the infrastructure is vital.

[Prope]

My guess is that New Orleans hasn't been rebuilt yet because they are trying to figure out a way to gentrify it, without making it look like gentrification.

[SABRSox]

My guess is that New Orleans hasn't been rebuilt yet because they are trying to figure out a way to gentrify it, without making it look like gentrification.
Sounds about right.

[infinite1]

Maybe we can make New Orleans the New Alcatraz ???

[The Racehorse]

If our country can put men on the moon and return them safely, 6 times, which all happened with 60s & 70s technology, then we find a way to properly rebuild New Orleans with 2007 technology.

[infinite1]

Y though

[SABRSox]

If our country can put men on the moon and return them safely, 6 times, which all happened with 60s & 70s technology, then we find a way to properly rebuild New Orleans with 2007 technology.
A lot has happened since then. Reaganomics, mainly.

[infinite1]

Whats everyones fascination with that shit hole

[SABRSox]

I think the fascination is that you'd expect that kind of treatment of the people by the government in 3rd World countries, not the richest fucking country in the world.

[CaptainBallz]

Whats everyones fascination with that shit hole

It was a relatively large, historically rich American city that was all but lost in the worst natural disaster in our country's history... and we're not dealing with it well.

[infinite1]

I am dealing just fine...

[CaptainBallz]

I am dealing just fine...

:ditto:

As in "not at all".. EXACTLY.


Want a job with FEMA?

[The Racehorse]

Y though

I'm a glass is half full type of guy... it could be done, and done properly, if it was made a priority at all levels of our government.

[infinite1]

I should get a job with them cuz I dont see whats the big deal.. It got washed up oh well.. Lets turn it into something new.. Like a new Las Vegas.. something that will profit us not another giant ghetto

[CaptainBallz]

I should get a job with them cuz I dont see whats the big deal.. It got washed up oh well.. Lets turn it into something new.. Like a new Las Vegas.. something that will profit us not another giant ghetto

WTF.. make up your damn mind. Rebuild it into a sustainable city or say "why bother"?

You've said both so far.

[infinite1]

No... If anything make it into a profitable city not a giant projects like they want (Chocolate City)

Either a profitable town or nothing.... Whats so hard to understand

[Pick a name, Buddy]

WTF.. make up your damn mind. Rebuild it into a sustainable city or say "why bother"?

You've said both so far.


Hey, he is entitled to his opinion(s)

[CaptainBallz]

No... If anything make it into a profitable city not a giant projects like they want (Chocolate City)

Either a profitable town or nothing.... Whats so hard to understand

It's hard to understand why you bother waking up every morning...

[3D23]

Not to be stupid or ignorant, I am asking this in a very serious way.

Why in the fuck are we rebuilding this city at ALL?

We live on the Mississippi (well, a ctually on a bluff that overlooks it, but for all intents and purposes, on the river) and right now there is some serious flooding. I get extremely pissed at people that carry no flood insurance, yet year after year, clean the shit and live there again. Which, fine, you want to be a dumb ass and have to clean that shit every year, go ahead, I certainly won't stop you, but STOP TAKING TAX DOLLARS TO DO SO!!!!

And herein lies my problem with N'awlins. Yes it has many beautiful attributes, but WHY would you move these people, many of whom are impoverished, back into a fucking flood plain, knowing full well this could and will happen again? Hell, this isn't even a flood plain, this is akin to living under the gulf! Take my tax dollars and donations, and move them somewhere this won't happen again, and bulldoze the slums. We have approximately 40 families here that relocated to our area after katrina, and are thriving, why can't this happen with others, as well?

[infinite1]

D-Unit is so awesome

And ballz just loves poor balls

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Not to be stupid or ignorant, I am asking this in a very serious way.

Why in the fuck are we rebuilding this city at ALL?

We live on the Mississippi (well, a ctually on a bluff that overlooks it, but for all intents and purposes, on the river) and right now there is some serious flooding. I get extremely pissed at people that carry no flood insurance, yet year after year, clean the shit and live there again. Which, fine, you want to be a dumb ass and have to clean that shit every year, go ahead, I certainly won't stop you, but STOP TAKING TAX DOLLARS TO DO SO!!!!

And herein lies my problem with N'awlins. Yes it has many beautiful attributes, but WHY would you move these people, many of whom are impoverished, back into a fucking flood plain, knowing full well this could and will happen again? Hell, this isn't even a flood plain, this is akin to living under the gulf! Take my tax dollars and donations, and move them somewhere this won't happen again, and bulldoze the slums. We have approximately 40 families here that relocated to our area after katrina, and are thriving, why can't this happen with others, as well?

Bingo!!! You racist! ;)

[infinite1]

I am racist

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Can you imagine ants building anthills on the beach? And you know how much they love to rebuild!

"High Tide again?!?!?! $#@%!!"

[infinite1]

Oh and I like Bingo too

[3D23]

Well it just doesn't make sense to me. I mean HELLO they can't BURY PEOPLE THERE because they are BELOW sea level. I am certainly not a rocket scientist, but it seems pretty cut and dried to me.

THis has NOTHING and I mean NOTHING to do with race, this is common sense. Why put ANYONE there?

[The Racehorse]

Y though

A lot has happened since then. Reaganomics, mainly.

If you mean "trickle down" then sure, I see what you mean..

I can't help but think that with leadership not tied to either political party, rebuilding New Orleans to include rebuilding those levees [to withstand a cat-6? & cat-7? hurricane] could be done.

... and yes, I'm hopelessly idealistic. :shrug:

BTW, I responded to infinite1 post earlier... I hope I just didn't evade the automerge.

[CaptainBallz]

D-Unit is so awesome

And ballz just loves poor balls

??

How does anything she said translate into "Lets turn it into something new.. Like a new Las Vegas"...

She actually MADE SENSE.

And on that point, I guess the #1 factor would be taking whatever money is going towards reconstruction and finding viable alternatives and locations to permanently relocate people.

We're not talking about relocating a fishing village in Timbuktu.. There's, like, a lot of people. A lot of poor people.. a lot of poor, black people (NIMBY, anyone?)

And also, there is the natural necessity of somehow rebuliding that area since it is where the largest river in the states enter the gulf.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Here's all you ever need to know about Glenn Beck, and how ignorant, racist and inflammatory he is:

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/glennbeck

When you cannot debate an argument on its' merits, it is always effective to attempt to identify some kind of character flaw or imperfection in the person that is making the argument. It's the Progressive Way! :rock:

[samram]

I would say getting insurance for anything in the higher risk areas would be nigh impossible. Hell, in Florida, homeowners rates have tripled over the past year or so.

[Spider_Pig]

Why not? Interesting, I should get involved in the rebuild. Things could finally be done the right way...

[Pick a name, Buddy]

??

How does anything she said translate into "Lets turn it into something new.. Like a new Las Vegas"...

She actually MADE SENSE.

And on that point, I guess the #1 factor would be taking whatever money is going towards reconstruction and finding viable alternatives and locations to permanently relocate people.

We're not talking about relocating a fishing village in Timbuktu.. There's, like, a lot of people. A lot of poor people.. a lot of poor, black people (NIMBY, anyone?)

And also, there is the natural necessity of somehow rebuliding that area since it is where the largest river in the states enter the gulf.


How about a wildlife refuge?

I am in favour of some infrastructure because it is an important port. But I think it needs to be primarily industrial and very restricted on where actual construction takes place (not below sea level for starters)

[infinite1]

I make alot of sense.. just not to you

And can we just put them all on a row boat to CUBA ?

[CaptainBallz]

How about a wildlife refuge?

I am in favour of some infrastructure because it is an important port. But I think it needs to be primarily industrial and very restricted on where actual construction takes place (not below sea level for starters)

isn't it all basically below sea level? And I was thinking the same thing about it mainly being an industrial area, but that naturally leads to residency.

The only sensible solution is to prototype that area into some uber-Jetsonian bubble town with its own self-sustaining ecosystem

[SABRSox]

I make alot of sense.. just not to you

And can we just put them all on a row boat to CUBA ?
No.

[maurice]

The Las Vegas example is a pretty good one but, in addition, NO is important because of its location and industry.

There's always going to be a city located there. You're going to have the French Quarter (which is higher than the flooded areas). You're going to have the industry. You're going to have necessary infrastructure to support these things. You're going to have people who work for all of the above. They have to live somewhere relatively close. They have to have public services (schools, hospitals, libraries, etc.) You're also going to have people who work for the public services. They have to live somewhere relatively close. Etc.

Again, none of this means that you have to restore it to the way it was before Katrina in some kind of fanatical Ray Nagin / GWB sense, but you do you have to restore it.

[SABRSox]

Also, you can't separate race from this issue, when the vast, overwhelming majority of the New Orleans population were poor black people. It is absolutely a racial issue. I'd like to see you try and defend the position that the government would have done exactly the same if the victims were rich white homeowners.

[infinite1]

I quit !!!!

I cant seem to piss people off anymore

Do with it what you will

[3D23]

??

How does anything she said translate into "Lets turn it into something new.. Like a new Las Vegas"...

She actually MADE SENSE.

And on that point, I guess the #1 factor would be taking whatever money is going towards reconstruction and finding viable alternatives and locations to permanently relocate people.

We're not talking about relocating a fishing village in Timbuktu.. There's, like, a lot of people. A lot of poor people.. a lot of poor, black people (NIMBY, anyone?)
And also, there is the natural necessity of somehow rebuliding that area since it is where the largest river in the states enter the gulf.


Actually, quite a few of those people have not gone back. Hence the reason there are still hundreds of bodies in the morgue, and abandoned property everywhere.

Granted it is quite a few more than a fishing village :D but look at the billions spent ALREADY in beaureacratic BULLSHIT, by both dems and reps, and not many people have dwellings that are livable, much less safe.

The large majority of the poor happen to be black because the community was heavily black to begin with. Not because all the whites fled, there weren't many to start with.

This needs to stop being a political platform to posture on, and find some solutions. I would say a good 60% of the people living there now can't afford flood insurance, and will be living there on subsidies anyway, so why not relocate and put them in a safer area? This also proves to be cost effective, as the future is sure to bring this catastrophe about again. Maybe not in our lifetime, but any time is too soon.

I just don't get it.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

isn't it all basically below sea level? And I was thinking the same thing about it mainly being an industrial area, but that naturally leads to residency.

The only sensible solution is to prototype that area into some uber-Jetsonian bubble town with its own self-sustaining ecosystem

But what happens when that Cat 5 inevitably hits 10 or 20 years down the line and this time thousands die. What will we say then?

Oops! Our bad. Third time's the charm! Let's do it right with 2030s technology!

[SABRSox]

This needs to stop being a political platform to posture on, and find some solutions. I would say a good 60% of the people living there now can't afford flood insurance, and will be living there on subsidies anyway, so why not relocate and put them in a safer area? This also proves to be cost effective, as the future is sure to bring this catastrophe about again. Maybe not in our lifetime, but any time is too soon.

I just don't get it.
I don't know, maybe because New Orleans is their home. Has been since they were born, and they don't want to leave.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Also, you can't separate race from this issue, when the vast, overwhelming majority of the New Orleans population were poor .

You can't.

I can

[3D23]

isn't it all basically below sea level? And I was thinking the same thing about it mainly being an industrial area, but that naturally leads to residency.

The only sensible solution is to prototype that area into some uber-Jetsonian bubble town with its own self-sustaining ecosystem

A recent study by Tulane University notes that 51% of New Orleans is at or above sea level, with the more densely populated areas generally on higher ground. The mean (average) elevation of the city is currently between one and two feet below sea level, with some portions of the city as high as 16 feet and others as low as 10 feet below sea level.



And we are rebuilding it why?

[SABRSox]

But what happens when that Cat 5 inevitably hits 10 or 20 years down the line and this time thousands die. What will we say then?

Oops! Our bad. Third time's the charm! Let's do it right with 2030s technology!
No. You fund things properly. You don't skimp on infrastructure, you make sure you build levees that hold, and pumps that work. You make sure you have the ability to get people out before the storm, and you have the shit ready to rebuild right after the storm passes.

It's not like the Bush administration didn't have warnings. Of course, they claim nobody anticipated the levees would be breached. Except for the scientist that directly told him the levees would be breached.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

And we are rebuilding it why?

So we don't get called racists?

[3D23]

I don't know, maybe because New Orleans is their home. Has been since they were born, and they don't want to leave.

Really? Tough shit. It is like letting the cow graze in the field that has no grass left to graze, because it is the only land they ever knew.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

No. You fund things properly. You don't skimp on infrastructure, you make sure you build levees that hold, and pumps that work. You make sure you have the ability to get people out before the storm, and you have the shit ready to rebuild right after the storm passes.

It's not like the Bush administration didn't have warnings. Of course, they claim nobody anticipated the levees would be breached. Except for the scientist that directly told him the levees would be breached.


Hey, this is all Clinton's fault! If he would have took out bin Laden...

oops, wrong argument! :o

[3D23]

No. You fund things properly. You don't skimp on infrastructure, you make sure you build levees that hold, and pumps that work. You make sure you have the ability to get people out before the storm, and you have the shit ready to rebuild right after the storm passes.

It's not like the Bush administration didn't have warnings. Of course, they claim nobody anticipated the levees would be breached. Except for the scientist that directly told him the levees would be breached.

SKRIP YOU CAN'T BUILD A FLOOD WALL OR LEVY WHEN YOU ARE BUILDING IT ON LAND BELOW SEA LEVELS!!!!!!!

Criminy.

:D

Seriously, how do you build a solid infrastructure on mud? I don't care how long your pilings are, or how deep they go, anything below sea level means exactly how it sounds. There is a reason Atlantis is gone, you know. ;)

Actually, the Corps of Engineers deemed this levee system to be inadaquate many decades ago, yet no one did anything about it. You simply can't build anything high enough with any type of stability to it to protect this much square footage.

[SABRSox]

You can't.

I can
You know, Fuller, you and I both live in earthquake zones. Perhaps we should all be moved off the west coast to somewhere safer. They can lump us and New Orleans all together in Kansas. Wait, tornadoes there. Maybe North Dakota then. Also, New York is under terror threats, so they need to come too. And Florida, too many hurricanes there. All of them are coming to North Dakota too.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Except for the scientist that directly told him the levees would be breached.


in a Category 5. You forgot that part of the quote.

[SABRSox]

SKRIP YOU CAN'T BUILD A FLOOD WALL OR LEVY WHEN YOU ARE BUILDING IT ON LAND BELOW SEA LEVELS!!!!!!!

Criminy.

:D
There are a great number of engineers that would disagree with you.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

You know, Fuller, you and I both live in earthquake zones. Perhaps we should all be moved off the west coast to somewhere safer. They can lump us and New Orleans all together in Kansas. Wait, tornadoes there. Maybe North Dakota then. Also, New York is under terror threats, so they need to come too. And Florida, too many hurricanes there. All of them are coming to North Dakota too.

Great point Skrip! What if they would have just walked away in 1906? What if we get hit with an 8.0? Tell everybody "it's okay. Plenty of room in Nevada!"

[SABRSox]

in a Category 5. You forgot that part of the quote.
Wrong. City engineers knew the levees, in their current condition before Katrina, would be breached by only a Category 4 hurricane. Katrina was a Category 4 when it hit New Orleans.

[CaptainBallz]

I don't know, maybe because New Orleans is their home. Has been since they were born, and they don't want to leave.

Although that's a reasonable emotional response, it doesn't do much good from a common sense perspective.

The entire topography of the region would have to change for it to be considered truly inhabitable and to justify the massive amounts of dollars that would need to go into rebuilding it.

I agree it doesn't make an whole lot of sense to earmark billions of taxpayer dollars for reconstruction while not addressing the fundamental fact that the chances of it getting leveled again in our lifetime is at 75% (ballz est.)

[3D23]

You know, Fuller, you and I both live in earthquake zones. Perhaps we should all be moved off the west coast to somewhere safer. They can lump us and New Orleans all together in Kansas. Wait, tornadoes there. Maybe North Dakota then. Also, New York is under terror threats, so they need to come too. And Florida, too many hurricanes there. All of them are coming to North Dakota too.


But there is a difference here, you can AFFORD earthquake insurance. I have the same problem with people that take loans in these areas, as well, yet choose or can not purchase earthquake insurance.

It's like my dad always said, first mistake, fuck me. Second mistake, fuck you.

[SABRSox]

Great point Skrip! What if they would have just walked away in 1906? What if we get hit with an 8.0? Tell everybody "it's okay. Plenty of room in Nevada!"
My point is you can't simply tell people to move out of their homes, because of something that might happen. Especially when that place happens to be a major metropolitan area.

[3D23]

There are a great number of engineers that would disagree with you.


But there are more that agree. I win. :D

[maurice]

relocate and put them in a safer area

Be more specific. Where exactly should they live while commuting daily to the tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs that are centered on the mouth of the Mississippi River?

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a large, unused, dry-as-bone parcel of land in Louisiana or Mississippi within commuting distance, how do they get to work, send their kids to school, flush the toilet, etc. without a massive investment in infrastructure?

[3D23]

My point is you can't simply tell people to move out of their homes, because of something that might happen. Especially when that place happens to be a major metropolitan area.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/08/30/katrina_wideweb__430x286.jpg


This is not a home that is habitable. There is also a yuge difference between certain and probable. Make no mistake, this will happen again, it is just a question of when.

I have earthquake insurance. Why? I live near the New Madrid fault. Do a lot of people have it? My guess would be no. But the odds of the fault moving is a fairly high, and why would you take the chance?

Be more specific. Where exactly should they live while commuting daily to the tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs that are centered on the mouth of the Mississippi River?

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a large, unused, dry-as-bone parcel of land in Louisiana or Mississippi within commuting distance, how do they get to work, send their kids to school, flush the toilet, etc. without a massive investment in infrastructure?

I said, we have 40 families (actually I think the number is higher, but I don't want to over-estimate) that relocated here. I am pretty sure if Dubuque, Iowa can take 40 families, there are other communities, as well, that could do the same.

[CaptainBallz]

http://www.grapeshisha.com/bubblecity.jpg

[maurice]

I said, we have 40 families (actually I think the number is higher, but I don't want to over-estimate) that relocated here. I am pretty sure if Dubuque, Iowa can take 40 families, there are other communities, as well, that could do the same.

A person living in Dubuque cannot "commute[] daily to the tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs that are centered on the mouth of the Mississippi River." Please read my entire post before replying.

[Prope]

Nobody got riled up by my gentrification comment.

[3D23]

A person living in Dubuque cannot "commute[] daily to the tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs that are centered on the mouth of the Mississippi River?" Please read my entire post before replying.

Shut your pie hole.


People can relocate to new jobs and homes, schools that are in session, and toilets that flush.


;)

I am not saying build a new New Orleans, I am saying, relocate to other areas. Not pick up the entire city and move it in one fell swoop, tard.

[SABRSox]

Let's face it, Republican government has failed to fund even the most basic needs of infrastructure. New Orleans needed a new levee system, They didn't get it and Katrina happened.

Up in Minneapolis, the Republican governor refused to fund programs for road improvements, and let a bridge that was in dire need of repairs go unfixed, until it finally collapsed into the Mississippi.

I'm not arguing that the location isn't bad, because it's about as terrible as it gets. But it can be done, and it should be done. Estimates are $32 Billion to make the levee system withstand a Category 5. But considering how much money we're throwing away in Iraq, I think it's pretty obvious that we should spend the money to make those improvements.

New Orleans will still remain an economically important city, not to mention it's cultural importance, which rivals just about any other city in the United States. Why just throw all that away?

[3D23]

Nobody got riled up by my gentrification comment.


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

There, feel better?

[Prope]

Not really.

[maurice]

So we'll just block the mouth of the Mississippi, close the bridges, close the ports, close the oil platforms, and close the refineries (not to mention the casinos and the French Quarter).

Yeah, that sounds like a plan that will help America.
:rolleyes:

[SABRSox]

By the way, 2/3 of the entire country of the Netherlands is below sea level. They need to move too, right?

[maurice]

By the way, 2/3 of the entire country of the Netherlands is below sea level. They need to move too, right?

You're arguing with somebody who knows squat about NO.

Do you really think she can rationally discuss the Netherlands?

[3D23]

Let's face it, Republican government has failed to fund even the most basic needs of infrastructure. New Orleans needed a new levee system, They didn't get it and Katrina happened.

AAAHHHHHH! Christ on a cracker, Skrip, the COE raised this issue over 20 years ago! Where was Bill Clinton, friend of the NAACP? If everyone was so worried about it, (especially after the devastation that Andrew levelled upon Florida) you would think New Orleans would have stood with a red flag in their hands, asking for help.


I'm not arguing that the location isn't bad, because it's about as terrible as it gets. But it can be done, and it should be done. Estimates are $32 Billion to make the levee system withstand a Category 5. But considering how much money we're throwing away in Iraq, I think it's pretty obvious that we should spend the money to make those improvements.

New Orleans will still remain an economically important city, not to mention it's cultural importance, which rivals just about any other city in the United States. Why just throw all that away?

Okay, stop with war comparisons.

No one is saying you can't still have a port that works with real possibilites, but what some of us are saying is relocate the majority of those families that are NOT WORKING ANYWAY and never did prior to Katrina, somwhere that might offer them more opportunites other than the hope of looking forward to the next hurricane that will wipe them out again. NO levee system is going to ever adequately protect that entire area.

[SABRSox]

Again, there are engineers around the world that disagree with your "technical" look at the levee system of New Orleans.

If they've made flood control work in the Netherlands, they can make it work in New Orleans as well.

The only question is should we pay for it. I say it's in the nation's best interest to do so, as New Orleans is a very important economic center in this country, and it needs to have a population to sustain that.

[Prope]

I remember reading somewhere, and by all means correct me if I am wrong, that the state government of LA should be held accountable for the levees not being fixed after Andrew.


:googling:

[3D23]

By the way, 2/3 of the entire country of the Netherlands is below sea level. They need to move too, right?

The Netherlands has been struggling against floods since the first people settled there. Over 60% of the country lies beneath mean sea-level. Countless people have lost their homes and their lives to floods from the sea or the rivers that could not be held by the flood-defences. The importance of the protection has led the Dutch to dedicate a Ministry solely to the protection against floods. Furthermore, local waterboards are an extra layer of government specially dedicated to protection against floods and water management. This has resulted in a very high level of flood-protection. Flood-protection remains a continuous point of interest due to the vulnerability of the Dutch economy with regard to flooding.


Difference is, we aren't funding it.

You're arguing with somebody who knows squat about NO.

Do you really think she can rationally discuss the Netherlands?

Fuck off Maurice. I lived there for 3 years, was there for 3 months after Katrina. Pretty sure I can discuss it intelligently. I managed to have a debate without critiquing your ability to add intelligent discussion, how about you afford me the same convenience. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you get to denegrate me.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I remember a big anti rebuilding movement for new orleans because of the fear that the govt would just go overboard and make it more of a military outpost\city

[maurice]

Pretty sure I can discuss it intelligently. I managed to have a debate without critiquing your ability to add intelligent discussion, how about you afford me the same convenience.

I believe that you can do it. I just with that you'd start.

At this point in the thread, we've established that tens of thousands of people or more need to live within commuting distance of the mouth of the Mississippi to maintain necessary infrastructure, to work in established industries, etc.

I specifically excluded the idea that we should rebuild ghettos simply for the sake of putting it back the way it was.

My question remains unanswered: Where exactly should these workers and their families live while commuting daily to these jobs, if we take your advice and simply not rebuild?

Your "answer" was "Dubuque, Iowa [and] other communities." You also called me a "tard," told me to shut my "pie hole," and asked me to "fuck off." None of these things qualify as "intelligent discussion" on your part. Rather, they tend to diminish your claim that I'm the one mistreating you.

[StockdaleforVeep]

who cares, in 40-60 years Louisiana will be gone anyway due to the dredging of the Miss, causing the state to shrink

[CaptainBallz]

Let's not be hyper-sensitive creampuffs about this... we have a city to build a dome around..

[soxwon]

Well the US GOVT gave a billion bucks, to New Orleons and Louisiana.
I wonder where that money went? Huh Mayor of New Orleons (democrat) and Govornor of LA. (Democrat)?
So the Govt has washed their hands of it, So you cant blame GWB for that.
See what happens when Democrats are faced with a tragedy!!!
And people want to elect Hillary and Osama bama.
How STUPID can people be?

[1951Campbell]

I'm making another late entry here, like the Pearl Jam thread.

Anyway, Katrina provided an opportunity for a pretty clear-headed assessment of exactly what it's going to take to make New Orleans safe. The sad answer is that to make it as disaster-proof as people would find acceptable in this day and age fails any reasonable cost/benefit analysis. The religious faith in government some have here to finally get it right--with the right people in charge, and a lot of money!--is foolish in the light of just how much power Mother Nature has over a city situated like New Orleans.

The bottom line is, the push to rebuild New Orleans is a political venture, with political motives, and people are gonna die yet again when the next Katrina-sized hurricaine--or larger--scores a direct hit.

[CaptainBallz]

I'm making another late entry here, like the Pearl Jam thread.

Anyway, Katrina provided an opportunity for a pretty clear-headed assessment of exactly what it's going to take to make New Orleans safe. The sad answer is that to make it as disaster-proof as people would find acceptable in this day and age fails any reasonable cost/benefit analysis. The religious faith in government some have here to finally get it right--with the right people in charge, and a lot of money!--is foolish in the light of just how much power Mother Nature has over a city situated like New Orleans.

The bottom line is, the push to rebuild New Orleans is a political venture, with political motives, and people are gonna die yet again when the next Katrina-sized hurricaine--or larger--scores a direct hit.

I think the point right now is the difference between that (highly) possible tragedy and the steps that can be taken to minimize it, if not prevent it, and the other options available concerning NO as a pretty crucial economic hub. Whether it should remain as such and have the proper infrastructure to remain as such or to abandon the whole thing and sprinkle pockets of poor Louisianians all over the country...

[maurice]

whether it should remain as such and have the proper infrastructure to remain as such or to abandon the whole thing

Right. Pretty much my only point is that it's going to remain important economically and, therefore, will require adequate infrastructure and workers who will require their own adequate infrastructure which will require more workers, etc. Not sure why any of this is considered controversial.

How much is "adequate," who pays for it, who controls the money, the blaming of various politicians, the treatment of poor black folks, etc. are completely separate issues that are bound to be controversial. I'm fairly certain that a huge chunk of former residents will remain "sprinkled," no matter how much they say they want to return.

:shrug:

[Myrtle]

I haven't read this whole thread so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else said...

but New Orleans should be built around the low lying areas. Housing should not be in places that are prone to flooding. Put those communities in the higher level areas and build parks and recreational centers in their place. Green space is always entertaining, good for the environment, visually pleasing, and takes pretty much no effort to clear a flood.

Engineers should focus on building leeves that are structurally sound instead of doing the crap ass job they're doing now.

This is all a big fucking duh, though.

[dcb]

Again, there are engineers around the world that disagree with your "technical" look at the levee system of New Orleans.

If they've made flood control work in the Netherlands, they can make it work in New Orleans as well.

The only question is should we pay for it. I say it's in the nation's best interest to do so, as New Orleans is a very important economic center in this country, and it needs to have a population to sustain that.

How many Category 5, or Category 1 hurricanes for that matter, have threatened the Netherlands?

You also do realize that by building more dams, levys, other flood control devices, we'd only be hastening the dissapearance of costal wetlands? Ruh-roh, quite the conundrum for a self described Hollywood liberal, do we allow the rebuilding of an entire industrial center at the expense of an evironmental disaster so that poor black people who've lived there all their lives can stay? The Louisiana Gulf Coast loses roughly 40 square miles (appx. the size of two Manhattans) of land each year because the Mississippi River is no longer allowed to flood and return silt and dirt to the bayou that gets washed away by the ocean, instead it all just ends up in the Gulf. If things remain as they are, or if more is done to try to control flooding by building more levys, or if nothing is done to replace the land that is currently being lost, the sea will claim New Orleans and all your levys.

No question a city is needed at the mouth of the Mississippi River, but it's clear that by keeping New Orleans where it's currently located is just a recipe for another disaster, for both man and the environment. I don't know how the hell we'd just pick up and move a city, but it's also clear that just building stronger levys isn't going to solve the problem either.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I haven't read this whole thread so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else said...

but New Orleans should be built around the low lying areas. Housing should not be in places that are prone to flooding. Put those communities in the higher level areas and build parks and recreational centers in their place. Green space is always entertaining, good for the environment, visually pleasing, and takes pretty much no effort to clear a flood.

Engineers should focus on building leeves that are structurally sound instead of doing the crap ass job they're doing now.

This is all a big fucking duh, though.
I still say the problem is scientists have shown Louisiana is shrinking\sinking into the ocean due to the lack of sediment deposits from the Miss. river

Soon there will be no Louisiana

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Skrip man, you are honestly and with a straight face going to blame the "republican government" for the shitty NO levee system? Are you remotely familiar with the total wastefulness and idiocy and crookedness of the governments of the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans? Oh, wait! They are Democratic and always have been. You couldn't possibly hold them to account. What about 8 years of Clinton largess? Couldn't that democratic adminstration see fit to address the levee system? Or did the system just suddenly go to shit on January 21, 2001? Of course that would make the GOP solely culpable.

Sometimes I wonder if you really believe the crap you write or if you are just trying to get a reaction...

[StockdaleforVeep]

Skrip man, you are honestly and with a straight face going to blame the "republican government" for the shitty NO levee system? Are you remotely familiar with the total wastefulness and idiocy and crookedness of the governments of the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans? Oh, wait! They are Democratic and always have been. You couldn't possibly hold them to account. What about 8 years of Clinton largess? Couldn't that democratic adminstration see fit to address the levee system? Or did the system just suddenly go to shit on January 21, 2001? Of course that would make the GOP solely culpable.

Sometimes I wonder if you really believe the crap you write or if you are just trying to get a reaction...

yeah, why didnt the clinton surpluss go to levees

zeppelin warned us all
"If it keeps on rainin, levee's gonna break"

[soxwon]

Skrip man, you are honestly and with a straight face going to blame the "republican government" for the shitty NO levee system? Are you remotely familiar with the total wastefulness and idiocy and crookedness of the governments of the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans? Oh, wait! They are Democratic and always have been. You couldn't possibly hold them to account. What about 8 years of Clinton largess? Couldn't that democratic adminstration see fit to address the levee system? Or did the system just suddenly go to shit on January 21, 2001? Of course that would make the GOP solely culpable.

Sometimes I wonder if you really believe the crap you write or if you are just trying to get a reaction...

Right on Guy- Thats what i said earlier.
Yes Bush made mistakes, no doubt.
But history will show, and id bank on it- Clinton will be seen as a HUGE
SELF SERVING SOB.

[Dan Mega]

Its never Clinton's fault. Never was, never has been. :jagoff:

[maurice]

yeah, why didnt the clinton surpluss go to levees

Because W & the GOP Congress gave the surplus + billions more to their rich friends, resulting in massive deficits.

[SABRSox]

The Clinton surplus was supposed to go back into the Social Security Trust Fund Reagan raided to fund his retarded tax cuts for the rich that America could not afford. Which were the first government programs to get cut, as the federal government was suddenly deep in the Red? Infrastructure; hospitals, roads, tunnels, bridges, levees. Sure, that's managed at the state level, but it's funded by the Federal Government. Further retarded legislation that has since passed now requires that all federal dollars be first matched by state dollars. Already cash strapped states that can't muster (for whatever reason) money for infrastructure projects don't get any federal assistance either, and the infrastructure deteriorates as a result. That's pretty fucked up, and we'll be paying for it in blood when more bridges collapse and more levees fail.

Anyway, remember Al Gore's "lock box?" The Clinton surplus was going to go back into the Social Security Trust Fund, to replace the money that had been taken from it by Reagan and every president since. Of course, George Bush decided to give more tax cuts to the rich when he took office, and that surplus has once again become a huge deficit that we'll be paying for later.

Anyway, back to New Orleans. I never said we should just rebuild it as it was. Obviously putting that many people back into such high risk areas would be negligent, but so would abandoning the city altogether. I think there are certain areas of New Orleans, specifically those areas that are way below sea level, that would be better off bulldozed and either used for flood control, or devoted for green belts, areas for alternative energies, etc.

Whether or not New Orleans is rebuilt, the Mississippi will need to be diverted and re-directed to rebuild wetlands and better manage siltation. That's a given. Awhile back I read a very good MIT study on the situation. It seemed balanced in regards to strengthening (and most importantly unifying) the levee system in New Orleans, making it withstand a Category 5 hurricane.

As for the Netherlands, they may not have hurricanes, but they have extremely nasty storms, and huge storm surge coming off the North Sea. A great example is the storm of 1953, which caused massive devastation. Anyway, my point is that if they can do it, so can we. Not only in New Orleans, but in the Central Valley in California as well.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

1 out of 2 isn't bad. ;)

Maybe next we can work on understanding how lower taxes fuel job creation which feeds a more robust economy. Remember, Ronnie freed us from the most oppressive tax structure this country had ever been burdened with. It fueled all of the job growth we saw in the boom of the 90s. It did not come without a cost (deficits) but we made out okay thanks to Clinton raping our military.

[SABRSox]

John Maynard Keynes would disagree with you. So would I.

[CaptainBallz]

1 out of 2 isn't bad. ;)

Maybe next we can work on understanding how lower taxes fuel job creation which feeds a more robust economy. Remember, Ronnie freed us from the most oppressive tax structure this country had ever been burdened with. It fueled all of the job growth we saw in the boom of the 90s. It did not come without a cost (deficits) but we made out okay thanks to Clinton raping our military.

you haven't paid much attention to the last 7 and a half years have you?

There hasn't been enough time to revise its history yet, so you might as well take a look at it.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Because W & the GOP Congress gave the surplus + billions more to their rich friends, resulting in massive deficits.

and did clinton use that money to reinforce the levees?

[1951Campbell]

John Maynard Keynes would disagree with you. So would I.

Kenyesians still exist? :rolling:

Anyway, are you savaging the 1986 tax cuts?

The same bill that was sponsored by Democrats?

The same bill that blew away a bunch of ridiculous tax shelters?

The same bill that broadened the tax base and brought in a ton of money?

[Hangar18]

John Maynard Keynes would disagree with you. So would I.


...... or the Big Hand .....

[SABRSox]

and did clinton use that money to reinforce the levees?
Shit, man, I fucking explained that.

[maurice]

GOP talking points:
- Everything good that happened under Reagan is because of Reagan
- Everything bad that happened under Reagan is because of Congress
- Everything good that happened after Reagan is because of Reagan
- Everything bad that happened after Reagan is because of Clinton

[SABRSox]

Kenyesians still exist? :rolling:

Anyway, are you savaging the 1986 tax cuts?

The same bill that was sponsored by Democrats?

The same bill that blew away a bunch of ridiculous tax shelters?

The same bill that broadened the tax base and brought in a ton of money?
Not sponsored by all Demcocrats, just sponsored by Dick Gephardt and Bill Bradley. Shit, in the 80's Gephardt was practically Republican (he was a pro-lifer, not to mention the chair of the DLC), and Bradley, well, everybody knows Bradley didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

As for the increase in revenue from the tax cuts, that's very debatable, and you can't tell me with 100% certainty it was the tax cuts, and not natural growth in the economy, that would have occurred regardless of the tax cuts.

It did cut out loopholes and tax shelters, but since then they've been replaced by more loopholes and shelters, this time for corporate interests. Corporations are now responsible for only 9% of the entire tax revenue collected by the government. That's down from 33% before these tax cuts. I can't see how you'll argue that's a good thing.

Those tax cuts were an attack on the middle and working classes in this country, and they've put this country deep into the red. Eventually we're going to have to significantly raise taxes to pay back all the debt we've incurred since.

[CaptainBallz]

GOP talking points:
- Everything good that happened under Reagan is because of Reagan
- Everything bad that happened under Reagan is because of Congress
- Everything good that happened after Reagan is because of Reagan
- Everything bad that happened after Reagan is because of Clinton

It's hard to not be the best President ever with that track record...

[maurice]

DLC4Lyfe

[SABRSox]

Yeah...

Reagan should be ranked in the bottom 25% of Presidents. He borrowed more money in his 8 years as President than every President from Washington to Carter combined.

[1951Campbell]

Not sponsored by all Demcocrats, just sponsored by Dick Gephardt and Bill Bradley. Shit, in the 80's Gephardt was practically Republican (he was a pro-lifer, not to mention the chair of the DLC), and Bradley, well, everybody knows Bradley didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

As for the increase in revenue from the tax cuts, that's very debatable, and you can't tell me with 100% certainty it was the tax cuts, and not natural growth in the economy, that would have occurred regardless of the tax cuts.

It did cut out loopholes and tax shelters, but since then they've been replaced by more loopholes and shelters, this time for corporate interests. Corporations are now responsible for only 9% of the entire tax revenue collected by the government. That's down from 33% before these tax cuts. I can't see how you'll argue that's a good thing.

Those tax cuts were an attack on the middle and working classes in this country, and they've put this country deep into the red. Eventually we're going to have to significantly raise taxes to pay back all the debt we've incurred since.

If you eliminate a labyrinth of shelters, you're gonna come up with more revenue, period. If you make compliance and reporting all of your income more attractive by lowering rates, you're gonna come up with more revenue, period. Those two things aren't that controversial--even my Marxist tax professor from law school would agree.

An attack on the lower and middle classes? Pfft. Only the lowest rate went up in 1986, and almost no one in the lowest rate ends up paying any federal income tax anyway--your effective tax rate is usually 0%.

The corporate tax stuff proves nothing. When their taxes go up, they just recoup that money from "natural persons." Also, what if personal incomes went way up and corporate ones did not? Throwing out two percentages proves next to nothing.

The 1986 deal was a rare moment of sanity in the IRC. It's been hacked away but too many targeted deductions, credits, yadda yadda yadda. Want more revenue? They need to (1) do a 1986 again and (2) they need to give the IRS more money and skilled attorneys to go after high-income taxpayers and just enough EITC people to keep recipients scared.

[Bonzosa]

Well the US GOVT gave a billion bucks, to New Orleons and Louisiana.
I wonder where that money went? Huh Mayor of New Orleons (democrat) and Govornor of LA. (Democrat)?
So the Govt has washed their hands of it, So you cant blame GWB for that.
See what happens when Democrats are faced with a tragedy!!!
And people want to elect Hillary and Osama bama.
How STUPID can people be?
Let's see, 1 billion = NO.
Iraq > 350 billion.
Hmm, something does not seem right about that.

Anyways,
I heard a piece on the radio this morning with a leader of a neighborhood assoc. in the Lower 9th Ward.
She was asked if it was a good idea to rebuild there (w/ public or private money) or relocate elsewhere in town and make that area a wetland.
She responded that it was a difficult decision and that people need to make up their own minds.

I think the decision to rebuild where the levees failed and where they could potentially fail and destroy houses is complete stupidity. Apparently people have memory retention problems.
Why should the US pay for these people to build in the most hazardous areas of NO?

[SABRSox]

Campbell, if the tax code of 1986 was such a good thing, how do you explain the vast accumulation of debt since then? Sure, unnecessary wars haven't helped, but the only time this nation had a budget surplus since 86 was when Clinton raised the top tax rate from 28% to 35%.

[1951Campbell]

Campbell, if the tax code of 1986 was such a good thing, how do you explain the vast accumulation of debt since then? Sure, unnecessary wars haven't helped, but the only time this nation had a budget surplus since 86 was when Clinton raised the top tax rate from 28% to 35%.

Clinton went from George H. W. Bush's 31% to 39.6%.

Anyway, the answer to your question is simple. Reagan, Bush, Clinton (for some of his presidency), and Bush all decided, with Congress, to spend more than the government took in in many years.

Say we had a magic wand, and we could get a bang-up tax code tomorrow that somehow raked in $30 trillion. Wouldn't mean a fucking thing if we spent $40 trillion.

I'm just saying how to maximize revenue. Spending is a different beast entirely.

[samram]

Two days and several topic changes later, but here is a three part series about what's happening in the NO and the Gulf. I'll apologize on the author's behalf as at no point does he declare that the problem is one of the following: "It's George Bush's fault," "George Bush doesn't care about black people," or "Bill Clinton got a blow job and didn't fix the levees."

http://reason.com/news/show/122221.html

http://reason.com/news/show/122255.html

http://reason.com/news/show/122268.html

[CaptainBallz]

Two days and several topic changes later, but here is a three part series about what's happening in the NO and the Gulf. I'll apologize on the author's behalf as at no point does he declare that the problem is one of the following: "It's George Bush's fault," "George Bush doesn't care about black people," or "Bill Clinton got a blow job and didn't fix the levees."

Then they're obviously missing the big story

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Two days and several topic changes later, but here is a three part series about what's happening in the NO and the Gulf. I'll apologize on the author's behalf as at no point does he declare that the problem is one of the following: "It's George Bush's fault," "George Bush doesn't care about black people," or "Bill Clinton got a blow job and didn't fix the levees."

http://reason.com/news/show/122221.html

http://reason.com/news/show/122255.html

http://reason.com/news/show/122268.html

That was a truly fascinating window into everything that is bad about Big Government! And what heroic stories about people who just took the bull by the schettman and took action, bureaucracy be damned!

The best leadership comes from the bottom up, not the top down.

Words to live by...

[samram]

That was a truly fascinating window into everything that is bad about Big Government! And what heroic stories about people who just took the bull by the schettman and took action, bureaucracy be damned!



Words to live by...

Agreed. The story of the Filipino community in NO is also instructive and inspiring.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Yeah, I forgot to mention the fact that this dispels the whole notion of racism being a barrier to reconstruction...

[soxwon]

Let's see, 1 billion = NO.
Iraq > 350 billion.
Hmm, something does not seem right about that.

Anyways,
I heard a piece on the radio this morning with a leader of a neighborhood assoc. in the Lower 9th Ward.
She was asked if it was a good idea to rebuild there (w/ public or private money) or relocate elsewhere in town and make that area a wetland.
She responded that it was a difficult decision and that people need to make up their own minds.

I think the decision to rebuild where the levees failed and where they could potentially fail and destroy houses is complete stupidity. Apparently people have memory retention problems.
Why should the US pay for these people to build in the most hazardous areas of NO?


actually i was wrong, the US Government gave $325 Billion dollars to New Orleans, and the Democratic Mayor and Govornor bought new cars.
Blame the WHOLE thing on the dems,.
End of Story.