Gustav

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101601209.html) why some didn't have it or were underinsured.

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101601209.html) 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?

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101601209.html) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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? ;)

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?

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.

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.