home

Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood control in 2003

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Huricanes Katrina and Rita
Posted on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 06:08:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

posted by Last Night in Little Rock

I heard this on Air America an hour ago, and I had to find it myself, and here it is: While we were pouring money into the War in Iraq, we were funding it in part by taking money from disaster preparedness. Since 2003, FEMA gave no money to Orleans and Jefferson Parishes in Louisiana, even though it recognized the flooding risks from a hurricane or levee breach as reported here about four hours ago.

Maestri [the local EM director] is still awaiting word from FEMA officials as to why Louisiana, despite being called the "floodplain of the nation" in a 2002 FEMA report, received no disaster mitigation grant money from FEMA in 2003 ("Homeland Insecurity," Sept. 28). Maestri says the rejection left emergency officials around the state "flabbergasted."

Indeed, the June 6th edition of New Orleans CityBusiness reported that the 2006 federal budget would cut another $71M from the Corps of Engineers budget used to protect New Orleans from flooding.

And that is on top of the previous failures to appropriate during Bush's oil war. I guess that cut isn't going to happen now.

I have had many a great time in New Orleans, and NACDL meets there regularly. I was glued to CNN today, and I was sick to my stomach that this great city, over 250 years old, was underwater. Bodies are floating in the streets. Refugee camps are being set up north of the city. Martial law has been declared. The Times-Picayune published only online today, but it is updated all day long. Its coverage is riveting.

Not enough National Guardsmen to help; not enough National Guard helicopters; a great city in ruins, and it will take years to recover. It was only a matter of time until this happened.

At least Bush decided that it was time to end his vacation so he can go back to Washington and deficit spend another $50B for a red state that he helped screw into oblivion. Bodies on the streets in the United States is too much to bear.

Anyone saying global warming added to the hurricane danger? No. It's liberal, tree hugger fiction, remember?

< Katrina and New Orleans: Most Depressing News Yet | Katrina Victims Suffer, Bush Plays Guitar >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood control in 2003 | 52 comments (52 topical)
    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#1)
    by Darryl Pearce on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 06:54:20 PM EST
    Yeah, but being the sensitive liberals that we are, we'd never bash Bush by linking him to the cut in funding (much as I'd like to see him tarred with it). The link seems pretty strong to me (far stronger than anything linking Clinton to the mysterious, hypothetical, mythical Arkansas mafia).

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 07:21:31 PM EST
    In other words, bush took money necessary for the public safety and gave it to Haliburton and KBE. What a swindle! bush is up there with the best of them.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#4)
    by Pete Guither on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 07:57:52 PM EST
    Sorry, -C That dog won't hunt. It's just more of the same, "Oh you horrible people on the left. How dare you criticize the President while our troops are facing danger? Don't you care about them at all?" "Oh, you horrible people on the left. How dare you critizice the President while people are homeless in New Orleans." If you paid the least bit of attention, you'd know that the people on the left are up there in line with the best of those on the right doing their part to help. But your suggestion that criticism and accountability is off-limits and somehow makes people on the left not "good" is preposterous. How much longer should we allow incompetence to rule unchecked out of some kind of warped "respect" for those who have been victimized by that incompetence?

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#6)
    by Johnny on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 08:17:15 PM EST
    "The level of political opportunism on the part of TL and the entire Left is just disturbing. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself." ROTFLMMFAO.... I'll remember that the next time the idiot in chief references Iraq during a speech about Hurricanes. The left is not alone in "politicising" disaster. Unless of course, you forget the last 4 years...

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#7)
    by jarober on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 08:20:28 PM EST
    So it's your opinion that stupidly blaming this on Bush is fine, since you believe that the other side has made similar arguments? Try reading the first paragraph I wrote above again. Repeat as often as you need to, since it's clearly hard for you to grasp.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#8)
    by Johnny on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 08:25:56 PM EST
    JR, your venom is coming out. Simmer down and see that I didn't defend the politicising, Did I? No. Maybe you need to re-read my post. Your comments about the 200 years of attempting to do better than what nature evolved di not go unnoticed. But you made the crack about the "level of political oppurtunitism"... And I had to remind you that Bush snuck "war on terror", "Iraq" into a speech he made in support of New Orleans. I was NOT defending either position. So retract the wrong wing claws and settle down. Or get bent. No skin off of my teeth.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 08:31:07 PM EST
    So, let me see. The city knows it has a problem. The feds reduce funding. What does the city do to replace funding? Best I can tell, nothing. But let's blame the Feds. After all, they made New Orleans do nothing. Folks, repeat after me. I'm for help to people involved in natural disasters. But don't expect Aunt Matilda from Missoula to come down and fix your problems. That's your job.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#13)
    by jarober on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    Ok - let's posit that all the money that was originally planned had been spent. Please explain what, if any, difference that would have made here.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#16)
    by jarober on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 09:10:55 PM EST
    Nice try, anonymous. Not an answer to my question though.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 09:13:04 PM EST
    Question: Why don't all you no names use a moniker? Afraid to take a position that you might have to defend later?

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#18)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    Good riddance, Cliff. I've yet to hear from my family at my house in Covington, 40 miles north of nola, for your information. Probably won't for two weeks. And you know what? I just saw that apparently nobody got around the plugging the holes in the levee due to a lack of leadership. So, now the entire city's going to flood, including the Quarter and the CBD. I'm sorry, but my favorite place in the world is now f*cked. Completely ruined. If you're meaning to tell me that this was an act of god, bullsh*t. Ditto for trying to convince me that things would have gotten this bad anywhere else. Although to be honest, Louisiana as a whole as almost as dumb as Bush so I don't know who's to blame. But I'm mad.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#19)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 09:32:54 PM EST
    Also, Jim, I wouldn't mind if you left, too. My god, you are a prick. I don't know what your conception of Louisiana economics is, but here's a primer: we don't have any money. The city doesn't have any money. As for your suggestion that we raise taxes, it's hard enough getting businesses to come down, although I guess that's all water over the levee at this point anyway, so to speak.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 10:22:11 PM EST
    Here is exactly what NO would have done if their funds hadn't been cut for bush's tax cuts and war. Short answer, they would have reinforced and raised the levees, exactly what broke down. Now we are going to pay billions instead of millions.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 10:23:54 PM EST
    Excellent point, James. Cut all the funding, while were at it! Besides, Louisiana residents got a terrific tax cut, so they shouldn't complain. Businesses flourished in New Orleans, thanks to that tax cut, at least before they were submerged.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 10:24:32 PM EST
    Louisiana made the tremendous error of not being a battleground state, that's all.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 10:24:59 PM EST
    It's all the fault of Bush's budget priorities over the last few years? The level of political opportunism on the part of TL and the entire Left is just disturbing. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.
    Indeed. Privatize FEMA and the National Guard! We need to get big government out of the search and rescue business, not to mention the disaster relief and refugee camp businesses. Faith-based initiatives are the simple minded answer! These stranded people need to find jobs! We can't carry them all!

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 10:25:20 PM EST
    The 2004 battleground states are listed here. Louisiana is a red state. So federal funding was cut. But Bush had nothing to do with that, no not at all. Let me help the Reprehensicans out with their talking points: Bush was encouraging privatization by cutting the funding.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 10:26:46 PM EST
    Just part of his evil plan for you.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 10:53:12 PM EST
    You reap what you sow? Maybe. Too bad they can't prove who voted for bush in New Orleans. Let them be homeless and provide housing for those who didn't vote for him.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 12:18:12 AM EST
    Wow, several posts by the Republican goon squad and none of them have found a way to blame Clinton yet. Color me astonished.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 12:20:46 AM EST
    So the 200+ years of levee construction - which have starved the bayou area of the silt that restores it - have nothing to do with the problem? It's all the fault of Bush's budget priorities over the last few years? The level of political opportunism on the part of TL and the entire Left is just disturbing. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 01:26:24 AM EST
    Yep, rest of country trying to help New Orleans, TalkLeft slamming bush. See ya. -C PS - My Aunt is fine, taken out by a neighbor in a john boat. PPS - My counsin Jackie still at Our Lady of the Lakes helping in the ER while her husband does medical stuff. PPSS - So dreadfully ashamed of liberal America right now, must go talk to my wife and remember that there are good people on the left.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 02:23:25 AM EST
    Ernie: Because blaming any one person is not logical, but it makes people feel good. I guess we could blame Tho. Jefferson for purchasing Lousiana. Or who ever settled NO (the French), stealing it from the Indians at the time. Even if the fantastic UN was running this city it would have happened.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 03:07:33 AM EST
    Because blaming any one person is not logical...
    Uh yeah, like logic has ever stood in your way before.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#25)
    by john horse on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 03:53:24 AM EST
    As I mentioned in another post, I've worked in emergency management in Florida. You can't prevent a hurricane from hitting but you can do alot in terms of response and mitigation. I find it unbelieveable that Bush has cut funding for mitigation projects in New Orleans since 2001. Mitigation works. I've seen where it helped to prevent damage to homes in flood prone areas of Florida (also saved taxpayers a pile of $$$$).

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 06:20:23 AM EST
    scar - So you don't want taxes raised because it will keep business out? Good grief, you are starting to sound like a Repub. sailor - You should make that "might" have done, and one more time: Where were the local politicians and the national LA politicians? Robg - Well, matching your nonsense with nonsense, why didn't the Demos make flood control an issue in NO? I mean, Algore could have stood on a levee and explained how he invented flood control.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#27)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 08:01:58 AM EST
    Apparently there is a price to living in a hurricane prone sub-sealevel bathtub, but otherwise is arguably paradise. New Orleans knew they had a problem but they wanted Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Wyoming, and so forth to pay for it. Well, these states didn’t foot the bill so New Orleans did what New Orleans is famous for; they gambled. And now, are we honestly talking about giving these folks money to put this place back together for the next storm? I think the feds should quit extorting money from hard working folks who live in more sensible places to subsidize these repeat loosers. In the last ~100 years about 8 category 2-5 hurricanes passed within 50n miles of New Orleans. Almost all of the west and east bank can flood from a cat 2 storm, and all of Orleans and Jefferson is vulnerable to storm surge from a cat 3 and can flood above 10 feet in storm of any grater intensity. I thought these folks are religious, guessed they missed Mathew 7:24

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 08:50:06 AM EST
    PW is absoultely right! There is no reason for the nation to which you pay taxes should help you if you live in a flood plain, a coastal area, earthquake zone, tornado area, volcano area ... oh wait a minute, that's the whole world! First rule in pw's world, get yours and screw everyone else. The sheer lack of empathy and compassion is deeply disturbing. I sent a link that had exactly what and when fema was going to do with the money that was allocated ... then bush cut the money. 'nuff said.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#29)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:21:54 AM EST
    Sailor-
    “oh wait a minute, that's the whole world!”
    No, it’s not. There are specific portions of the country that benefit disproportionately from federal programs like FEMA. The bulk of disaster declarations are in very small areas of the country while wide swaths haven’t had a declaration in decades. You can also see that the vast majority of declarations are due to flooding and severe weather. Eight of FEMA’s top ten natural disasters were hurricanes and tropical storms. I shouldn’t fail to mention the #1 disaster, an earthquake in California; who would have thought?
    “First rule in pw's world, get yours and screw everyone else. The sheer lack of empathy and compassion is deeply disturbing.”
    Because I don’t post my thoughts of compassion and empathy on a blog doesn’t mean I don’t have them, but you go ahead and enjoy the self-satisfaction you get from it; I come here to change minds, not wax poetic. I think this is a good time as any to discuss cutting New Orleans off from the federal trough. They knew this was coming, they knew how bad it would be, and now they want to rebuild it for another go round. Maddening!

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#30)
    by aw on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:43:31 AM EST
    pw: Are you an American?

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    pw, but you did post your thoughts on compassion and empathy and they amounted to 'NO, GFY if you aren't smart enough to live where i do.' Iowa gets farm subsidies, (BTW, how much fed disaster relief have they had from tornadoes in the last 20 years since NO was hit?), Utah and WY subsidize cattle ranchers by allowing them to graze on fed land, kansas is a major tornado alley and they ALL get corporate welfare. BTW "New Orleans did what New Orleans is famous for; they gambled." No, the feds CUT the money.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:13:47 AM EST
    My heart goes out to all the people who've been affected by the storm. A close high-school friend of my wife is married to a (Creole) cop in the French Quarter and they owned, until about 48 hours ago, a small jazz club there. That said, I harbor little romanticism in my heart for the city itself - a filthy, dangerous, crime-infested, corrupt, albeit often architecturally beautiful, sh*t pile.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 11:03:23 AM EST
    pw, while you linked to the largest single payouts and linked to the most frequent disaster types from 1965 to 2003, there is no correlation between them. The mississippi floods a lot more often that hurricanes hit. Wildfires getting prez disaster designations happen every year. Apparently according to you we should all live in Utah Nevada or Arizona. There's a reason that most people don't want to live in those areas; they aren't habitable. Pumping in water and food from other states is another form of fed subsidies. Food is obviouly going to cost a lot more in AZ than Indiana if prices were market based.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 11:09:38 AM EST
    Sarc-Well do not worry Disney will recreate a cleaned up version of NO for you and Bushco so that your romantic fires can safely rage out of control. Sanitation and fasciscm fuel your fake romance, rose colored glasses and prozak will be provided for all those who are horrorifed by the illusion. All subjects will be provided for, no "filth" will slip through undetected.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#35)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 11:20:32 AM EST
    Sailor- Pointing to other questionable uses of tax revenue isn’t going to justify this one. It’s a bit like an obese man justifying his life endangering weight by pointing out that he also smokes and drinks too much. You’ll find I’m very consistent on any kind of subsidy, although I’m a bit confused why you would think allowing a state use the land the federal government repod is a subsidy. If folks want to live there fine, but why am I paying for it?
    “but you did post your thoughts on compassion and empathy and they amounted to … “
    Sailor, here’s an experiment for you. Start putting your posts of compassion and good will in one hand and crap in the other; let us know which fills up first. If it makes you feel good, great, but you’re not doing the folks in NO any more good by it.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 11:28:00 AM EST
    PW-$4 billion/week is OK for Empire Building (destruction) but $16 Billion for saving a Cultural treasure is unfair. Culture is filthy so we must cleanse the world at great expense? Great outlook, At least The Chimp King's ass is getting licked clean.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#37)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    “PW-$4 billion/week is OK for Empire Building (destruction) but $16 Billion for saving a Cultural treasure is unfair. Culture is filthy so we must cleanse the world at great expense? Great outlook,"
    If you want build strawmen and invent dialogue I think Patrick is offline. I know, it’s fun to talk tuff; but inventing another’s position to rally on is juvenile and lame. Or … you could try responding to the points I made.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 12:11:23 PM EST
    PW-Your point is inchoherent. You question the Federal Government funding of things you have no use for. A selfish and unworkable position that was worked out in 1776.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    Squeaky, were you the Anonymous poster who responded to my comment above? No attack, just curious, lacking TypeKey does have its drawbacks.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#40)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 12:46:47 PM EST
    “-Your point is inchoherent.”
    Nice try, dismiss it out of hand so you can avoid the loosing end of an argument.
    “You question the Federal Government funding of things you have no use for.”
    No, but let’s just start by asking how prudent a use of federal revenue this is. Really, subsidize insurance for property we know will be destroyed? Come on.
    “A selfish and unworkable position that was worked out in 1776.”
    I suppose we can debate if the authors of the constitution meant the feds to redistribute funds among the states for disaster prone areas (start by showing me which of the enumerated powers article 1 section 8 provides for this), but selfish? It almost strikes me funny, if it wasn’t so aggravating, that that accusation is invariably tossed in the discussion of how the feds should spend my money. Sure, it’s not selfish to use the full force and violence of the federal government to take the fruit of folks’ labor to insure and fund the reconstruction of property in disaster prone areas? But to question it, unthinkable! How selfish, that I should even question the use of my money to rebuild a town that, if history can be trusted, will be destroyed again. How selfish, that I should question rebuilding a levied, dammed, and drained, sub-sealevel ocean side bathtub. The man who builds his house on the beach at taxpayer expense, above reproach; that I would chafe a bit, unthinkable.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    Piggie... I don't drive a car and so I resent the fact the the government spends money building roads. I have a gun with which to defend myself so I have no need of the army and I therefore resent the government spending money on defence. I also use my gun to settle disputes with my neighbours, leaving no need of courts or a justice system - so I resent the money spent on these unnecessary luxuries. I'm a strict Darwinist and so I believe that the old or chronically sick without resources to help themselves should be left out on the icefloes to die. Why should the government waste money keeping them alive when they're bound to die eventually? Do you see where we're going with this particular strawman? I think you probably can. The point I'm making is that (libertarian though you may be) you surely acknowledge there are some things that Government can justifiably be expected to do. So all you are really arguing is what degree of risk of natural disaster the Government should mandate as acceptable. At what statistical probability of risk should the government stop helping out during natural disasters? What was the statistical risk of Iraq launching a chemical attack on us? And yet it merited several hundred billion to deal with that "risk". Your thoughts please.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 01:35:43 PM EST
    I'm still reeling from the fact that someone actually listens to Air America.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    Sarc-yes it was me, I did not get the typekey thing right that time. Pig-Selfish, yes. Your argument gets exponentially eclipsed by the one fed spending project you choose not to mention. The whole point to writing a constitution was that we would have a strong federal gov to decide what is good for america so individuals like you, would not be tempted to wage constant war against other states. The US may have been three or more seperate countries had not The Declaration of Independence been written. One reason for writing the thing was avoid all the war Independent states tend to wage as was the case in Europe. Slavery might still exist if you had your way. Billmon has an excellent post about the writing of US Constitution and how it's analogy with the Iraq Constitution is very different than Chimpy would like us to believe. Their constitution seems more in keeping with your view of how our's should be. Also his post on NO is .worth a read

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#44)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 02:53:04 PM EST
    Ian-
    “you surely acknowledge there are some things that Government can justifiably be expected to do.”
    Sure, few may they be.
    “So all you are really arguing is what degree of risk of natural disaster the Government should mandate as acceptable. … At what statistical probability of risk should the government stop helping out during natural disasters?”
    I’m not talking about abandoning folks. If the government didn’t subsidize insurance for high-risk property or provide only minimal funds for people who lost their property in natural disasters I don’t know that New Orleans would be here today, it certainly wouldn’t be after today. Its one thing to debate government action subsequent to a freak disaster, quite another when it’s a well documented man-made risk.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 03:04:32 PM EST
    PW-Global warming is a well documented risk. The oil platforms and chemical companies potential for contamination is a well documented risk. The potential for world destruction by nuclear war is a well documented risk.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 03:12:50 PM EST
    Paul-Yes that was a beautiful march but do not forget, it was supposed to be in central park, and the permit process was fought against by Bloomberg all the way. There was some NYPD haranguing, and the crowd control barriers prevented many from actually marching, because access was limited. Also Bloomberg never apologized for the awful remarks by Rove et.al. linkening NYers to terrorists.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    Squeak - Global warning is a myth. But then you believe in myths. BTW - You are as much in love with Bilmon as SD was with Juan Cole. Sarcastic - Not really. All they have to do is type in their names, email address and check "remember me - yes." That they can't kinda demonstrates why they believe in global warming and other myths. Ian writes:
    there are some things that Government can justifiably be expected to do.
    Yes, and insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. You should also consider that the cost to the other 99.9% of the country is optional on the part of the people causing the cost.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 08:41:26 PM EST
    PPJ-If science is a myth, myths can lead people to make wise decisions. Not you though, you're gonna out fox em. Clever you.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:55:53 PM EST
    Wow New Orleans is f@#ked, big time. And it is going to cost Bush, big time. His lame response and now the revelation that money for the levees was diverted for Iraq. He is going to catch heat so badly. It is the only good news from this whole thing. This terrible tragedy will wake up a lot of people to the fact that we have been led down a dangerous path because of Bush. There is a huge mess in Iraq and we have no choice but to continue spending a BILLION per week there. And because of it, we have nothing left over for a rainy day. In this case a really rainy day. See PW, and the rest of you righties that cannot handle the truth, that is the kind of logic most Americans can understand. And they are starting to understand. Let's enjoy the Bush team squirming over this. But I should not get too ahead of myself. He will hide and let Scott McClellan squirm.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#50)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 06:55:51 AM EST
    Squeaky-
    “The whole point to writing a constitution was that we would have a strong federal gov to decide what is good for America …”
    If this was the intent of the framers they should have given the people and the states a few enumerated powers and given the federal government the rest. Instead they gave the federal government 18 duties through article 1 section 8 and gave the states or the people the balance through the 10th amendment. I’ll point out, they chose to reflect the multitude of inalienable rights the people enjoy in the 9th. And I believe one of them is self-determination, something that is altogether antithetical to the federal government deciding what is good for me.
    “Slavery might still exist if you had your way.”
    Don’t be and a$$. If I had my way folks would have realized that inalienable rights transcend nationality, race, and sex. I can point to more than a dozen of your posts showing just how upset you are with the actions of the federal government. When you b1tch about homeland security, when you b1tch about TSA searches in the subway, when you worry about the future of Roe, when you b1tch about mandatory minimums for drug offenses near schools, or the war on drugs, or the DEA, or Raich, or Gitmo; that’s your strong federal government. In my world you could live in a state where drugs are legal, or not. In your world we need to hold out the hope that by some stroke of luck the right people have control of that mass of centralized power now vested in the federal government long enough to do a bit of good. Your way clearly sucks, you’ve said as much.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 08:24:47 AM EST
    "In my world..." And that's exactly the point. Too many people are living in their own world rather than reality, which rarely conforms to private worlds, be they libertarian. communist, or wingnut conservative visions of utopia. Back here in the real world, gov's sometimes good, sometimes bad. Like everything else, except for libertarians, of course, who are darn near perfect.

    Re: Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood (none / 0) (#52)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    Sailor- Sorry, I missed one of your posts.
    “you linked to the largest single payouts and linked to the most frequent disaster types from 1965 to 2003, there is no correlation between them.”
    Other than the largest payouts were for hurricanes and unsurprisingly the gulf coast was one of the most disaster dense regions. Although you maker and interesting point; I would love to see a map of dollars spent.
    “Apparently according to you we should all live in Utah Nevada or Arizona. There's a reason that most people don't want to live in those areas; they aren't habitable.”
    I think folks should live where they want, and pay the cost. If you want to live in a hurricane prone area, which incidentally is paradise most of the time, there is some added cost. Also, all of the states you named are quite inhabitable, but if you prefer it appears that Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, most of Texas and Kansas, Georgia, South Carolina are all reasonably safe by the standard of disaster declaration. He!!, live in a houseboat in the gulf if you want, just don’t act all put out when I don’t want to help you foot the bill.
    “Pumping in water and food from other states is another form of fed subsidies. Food is obviouly going to cost a lot more in AZ than Indiana if prices were market based.”
    I agree, folks should pay for what they use. I that your point?

    Bush Administration cut funding for NOLA flood control in 2003 | 52 comments (52 topical)