Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


Gustav

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-03-2008, 09:47 AM   #16
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 85,866
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
No they should be happy to have shelter on the tax payers sense they decide not to carry ins. These people where complaining about where the city had them staying while waitin out Gustav. Not sure what they expected with the hugh amount of people they had to find shelter for. It just seemed these people where not grateful for anything that has been done for them.
They're in a stressful situation. They are displaced from their homes and communities and I'm sure the shelter they are being provided with is pretty basic. I'm sure most of us in that situation might be a tad grumpy. You can't keep everyone happy, I wouldn't assume that everyone is ungrateful there though.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-03-2008, 09:51 AM   #17
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,657
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
It's got nothing to do with giving them a handout, but doesn't the gov't have to bear a large part of the blame for what happened in the first place? Katrina was a classic cluster F from the start and 3 years later NO is still a mess. So the gov't dropping off some basic shelter absolves them of any continued responsibility? "Hey everyone here are some lovely trailers, have fun rebuilding your city. Sorry about those shitty levees we knew would crumble eventually from a big enough storm. See ya in 3 years!"
Quite frankly, no, they don't.

The federal government should not be responsible for maintenance of the levees. The local state or city government should be responsible. Those levees are located in Louisiana, not in Virginia, not in Pennsylvania, not in California. I see no reason why funds from the federal government should be used to support that levee system. What logical argument is there suggesting that the federal government should??

Because Katrina was a "cluster F", that means the federal government is responsible? Why??

The federal government failed to provide adequate relief immediately following the storm. They failed to get food and water and medicines into those affected, which is in fact the purpose of FEMA. But once the federal government did provide the trailers, the water, the food through FEMA, why in the world are they responsible for doing more than that??

When did the federal government become a flood insurance underwriter? The government's job is not to put your life back together when a disaster strikes. It is to give you the bare essentials for survival, the rest is up to you.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:01 AM   #18
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 85,866
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
Quite frankly, no, they don't.

The federal government should not be responsible for maintenance of the levees. The local state or city government should be responsible. Those levees are located in Louisiana, not in Virginia, not in Pennsylvania, not in California. I see no reason why funds from the federal government should be used to support that levee system. What logical argument is there suggesting that the federal government should??

Because Katrina was a "cluster F", that means the federal government is responsible? Why??

The federal government failed to provide adequate relief immediately following the storm. They failed to get food and water and medicines into those affected, which is in fact the purpose of FEMA. But once the federal government did provide the trailers, the water, the food through FEMA, why in the world are they responsible for doing more than that??

When did the federal government become a flood insurance underwriter? The government's job is not to put your life back together when a disaster strikes. It is to give you the bare essentials for survival, the rest is up to you.
Even though the levee system in NO is a Federally built flood protection system?
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:21 AM   #19
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,281
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
Quite frankly, no, they don't.

The federal government should not be responsible for maintenance of the levees. The local state or city government should be responsible. Those levees are located in Louisiana, not in Virginia, not in Pennsylvania, not in California. I see no reason why funds from the federal government should be used to support that levee system. What logical argument is there suggesting that the federal government should??
While I agree with most of your points, the fact is that the port of New Orleans is part (and a significant part at that) of the Mississippi river economic system and is a key entry/exit port for the national economy. Pre-Katrina, New Orleans was the countries 3rd largest export port and 8th largest import port. Further, in 2005, between 55-70% of the total grain exports Baton Rouge, South Lousianna, and New Orleans. (See http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/a...rs/RS22297.pdf) (it'sfrom 2005, I didn't see a more current reference, but would assume the ratios are similar if somewhat depressed post-Katrina).

Much like interstate roadways, given the extensive national system of which New Orleans is a part, the Federal government has a strong interest in maintaining the feasability of New Orleans as a working port.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:26 AM   #20
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,061
Re: Gustav

Yeah in 3 years they should have had everything rebuilt already. That type of stuff doesn't take too long.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:27 AM   #21
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,657
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
Even though the levee system in NO is a Federally built flood protection system?
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?
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:27 AM   #22
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 85,866
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
Yeah in 3 years they should have had everything rebuilt already. That type of stuff doesn't take too long.
I'm assuming you are being sarcastic.

So are you saying they have made satisfactory progress to date?
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:29 AM   #23
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,657
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
While I agree with most of your points, the fact is that the port of New Orleans is part (and a significant part at that) of the Mississippi river economic system and is a key entry/exit port for the national economy. Pre-Katrina, New Orleans was the countries 3rd largest export port and 8th largest import port. Further, in 2005, between 55-70% of the total grain exports Baton Rouge, South Lousianna, and New Orleans. (See http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/a...rs/RS22297.pdf) (it'sfrom 2005, I didn't see a more current reference, but would assume the ratios are similar if somewhat depressed post-Katrina).

Much like interstate roadways, given the extensive national system of which New Orleans is a part, the Federal government has a strong interest in maintaining the feasability of New Orleans as a working port.
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.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:37 AM   #24
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 85,866
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
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.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:40 AM   #25
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,657
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:42 AM   #26
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,657
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
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.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:49 AM   #27
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,281
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
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.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:50 AM   #28
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,061
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
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.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:51 AM   #29
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 85,866
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
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.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2008, 10:52 AM   #30
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 85,866
Re: Gustav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
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?
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.53421 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25