Response to Hurricane Andrew

[RunRoscoRun]

Interesting comment.  As far as I am concerned that is one of the principal responsibilities that government has.

 

To take your reasoning a bit further, why does government "bail out" communities with transportation money?  Why does government provide disaster assistance in any case?

 

If we are not going to "bail out" our own people, what the hell are we doing in Iraq bailing out the Iraqis?!?  We should be "bailing out" our own people long before we even think about "bailing out" anyone else.

427090[/snapback]

 

Amen Brother. But didn't you know... Bush never does anything wrong.

[ExiledInIllinois]

From how I see it, the USACE is maintaining a service (a bigger, dryer NOLA) that they just can't keep up anymore.

 

And some are saying they shouldn't bare full moral responsibilty?

 

How hypocritical... Gee look how great we made it, come on it, expand, grow... Looks great doesn't it? Just don't blame me if I get lazy and something happens! Don't worry be happy!

 

[Lemur King]

Actually, it was pretty bad down here. Until Katrina, Andrew was the worst natural disaster in our history.  Somehow, we managed to make sure that people did not die because they lacked the basic necessities.  I would like to think that we are a first world country and that we could have responded to the coming storm and its aftermath better than we did.  Indeed, if the news media can be there to cover the story, one would think that the federal government with all of its resources could have done an adequate job.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But Andrew did not leave an entire city unhabitable- and unapproachable (for the most part). Andrew was a piker compared to this. When the levee broke, it was lights out on every rescue effort and effective food delivery operation. There was nothing- not a damn thing- anyone could do once the levee broke. Feeding and sheltering 60,000 people, most of whom have been displaced from their homes (as was less so the case with Andrew) cannot be done overnight.

 

This is the worst disaster ever in the US. And despite people's complaints that it could be forseen, who was willing to pay several billion to raise the levees and build new canals. Don't blame Bush (who I hate)-- the USACE budget has been slashed every year for the last 30- this is not a Republican problem. It's just a problem. And frankly, as a taxpayer, I'm not sure I would have wanted a shitload of money funneled to NO levees either.

 

You want a list of possible big natural disasters that you could pay for right now?

 

(1) SF falls into the ocean. Should we have an entire navy search and rescue operation at the ready to rescue a few million people who might die? I vote no.

 

(2) Massive irrigation problems in the midwest cuts off almost all water that AZ relies on to survive. Should we have 8 quadrillion gallons of water somewhere for these people (keeping in mind that you have to keep replentishing the supply)? I vote no.

 

(3) The massive volcano under yellowstone erupts and drops a dustcloud that kills all the crops in 5 surrounding states. Should we have food and farm supplies on hand to feed the country while we "sweep" out the debris from five states (should be easy). I vote no.

 

Natural disasters are terrible and horible, and we can only hope they don't happen, although in the coming years they will happen with increasing frequency. (READ THE BIBLE!) The people chanting "help" in the streets will get it. It's coming, but you know what- it can only go so fast.

 

In the end, I have no doubt certain things could have been done better here, but I don't know how much better.

[ExiledInIllinois]

But Andrew did not leave an entire city unhabitable- and unapproachable (for the most part). Andrew was a piker compared to this. When the levee broke, it was lights out on every rescue effort and effective food delivery operation. There was nothing- not a damn thing- anyone could do once the levee broke. Feeding and sheltering 60,000 people, most of whom have been displaced from their homes (as was less so the case with Andrew) cannot be done overnight.

 

This is the worst disaster ever in the US. And despite people's complaints that it could be forseen, who was willing to pay several billion to raise the levees and build new canals. Don't blame Bush (who I hate)-- the USACE budget has been slashed every year for the last 30- this is not a Republican problem. It's just a problem. And frankly, as a taxpayer, I'm not sure I would have wanted a shitload of money funneled to NO levees either.

 

You want a list of possible big natural disasters that you could pay for right now?

 

(1) SF falls into the ocean. Should we have an entire navy search and rescue operation at the ready to rescue a few million people who might die? I vote no.

 

(2) Massive irrigation problems in the midwest cuts off almost all water that AZ relies on to survive. Should we have 8 quadrillion gallons of water somewhere for these people (keeping in mind that you have to keep replentishing the supply)? I vote no.

 

(3) The massive volcano under yellowstone erupts and drops a dustcloud that kills all the crops in 5 surrounding states. Should we have food and farm supplies on hand to feed the country while we "sweep" out the debris from five states (should be easy). I vote no.

 

Natural disasters are terrible and horible, and we can only hope they don't happen. The people chanting "help" in the streets will get it. It's coming, but you know what- it can only go so fast.

 

In the end, I have no doubt certain things could have been done better here, but I don't know how much better.

427106[/snapback]

 

Your exaggeration aside... NOLA was VERY WORKABLE and cheap compared to the above disasters.

 

The can divert the Niagara River? They can work around NOLA.

[Chef Jim]

But Andrew did not leave an entire city unhabitable- and unapproachable (for the most part). Andrew was a piker compared to this. When the levee broke, it was lights out on every rescue effort and effective food delivery operation. There was nothing- not a damn thing- anyone could do once the levee broke. Feeding and sheltering 60,000 people, most of whom have been displaced from their homes (as was less so the case with Andrew) cannot be done overnight.

 

This is the worst disaster ever in the US. And despite people's complaints that it could be forseen, who was willing to pay several billion to raise the levees and build new canals. Don't blame Bush (who I hate)-- the USACE budget has been slashed every year for the last 30- this is not a Republican problem. It's just a problem. And frankly, as a taxpayer, I'm not sure I would have wanted a shitload of money funneled to NO levees either.

 

You want a list of possible big natural disasters that you could pay for right now?

 

(1) SF falls into the ocean. Should we have an entire navy search and rescue operation at the ready to rescue a few million people who might die? I vote no.

 

(2) Massive irrigation problems in the midwest cuts off almost all water that AZ relies on to survive. Should we have 8 quadrillion gallons of water somewhere for these people (keeping in mind that you have to keep replentishing the supply)? I vote no.

 

(3) The massive volcano under yellowstone erupts and drops a dustcloud that kills all the crops in 5 surrounding states. Should we have food and farm supplies on hand to feed the country while we "sweep" out the debris from five states (should be easy). I vote no.

 

Natural disasters are terrible and horible, and we can only hope they don't happen. The people chanting "help" in the streets will get it. It's coming, but you know what- it can only go so fast.

 

In the end, I have no doubt certain things could have been done better here, but I don't know how much better.

427106[/snapback]

 

Hear, hear....good post!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The government is US! Your so proud when the government bails out foreigner though . That's why we pay taxes... to Keep America strong. You are a perfect fit for dubya... he doesn't think the governement should do anything for American's either. 

427088[/snapback]

 

Are you retarded or do you just type like one? I HATE when our government sends aid to foreign countries. Look it up, pal.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Interesting comment.  As far as I am concerned that is one of the principal responsibilities that government has.

 

To take your reasoning a bit further, why does government "bail out" communities with transportation money?  Why does government provide disaster assistance in any case?

 

If we are not going to "bail out" our own people, what the hell are we doing in Iraq bailing out the Iraqis?!?  We should be "bailing out" our own people long before we even think about "bailing out" anyone else.

427090[/snapback]

 

 

Again, let's put on our critical thinking hats here. The Mississippi floods nearly every single year, causing BILLIONS in damage that costs the taxpayers each and every time.

 

I'd wager we've spent FAR more over the past 100 years providing aid for "victims" of Floods than we've spent in Iraq....when the simple solution is to relocate them away from the river.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What are you not getting?

 

I agree with you in principle

 

But I have to agrue, is that river in its NATURAL state... Or has it been altered and played with... They keep digging deeper and channalizing the thing.  Don't they have an obligation or liabilty here.

 

How deep should that harbor be naturally?

 

Return it back to its natural state and I got no problem with your logic.

427093[/snapback]

 

Hey, I'm cool with that solution.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

But Andrew did not leave an entire city unhabitable- and unapproachable (for the most part). Andrew was a piker compared to this. When the levee broke, it was lights out on every rescue effort and effective food delivery operation. There was nothing- not a damn thing- anyone could do once the levee broke. Feeding and sheltering 60,000 people, most of whom have been displaced from their homes (as was less so the case with Andrew) cannot be done overnight.

 

This is the worst disaster ever in the US. And despite people's complaints that it could be forseen, who was willing to pay several billion to raise the levees and build new canals. Don't blame Bush (who I hate)-- the USACE budget has been slashed every year for the last 30- this is not a Republican problem. It's just a problem. And frankly, as a taxpayer, I'm not sure I would have wanted a shitload of money funneled to NO levees either.

 

You want a list of possible big natural disasters that you could pay for right now?

 

(1) SF falls into the ocean. Should we have an entire navy search and rescue operation at the ready to rescue a few million people who might die? I vote no.

 

(2) Massive irrigation problems in the midwest cuts off almost all water that AZ relies on to survive. Should we have 8 quadrillion gallons of water somewhere for these people (keeping in mind that you have to keep replentishing the supply)? I vote no.

 

(3) The massive volcano under yellowstone erupts and drops a dustcloud that kills all the crops in 5 surrounding states. Should we have food and farm supplies on hand to feed the country while we "sweep" out the debris from five states (should be easy). I vote no.

 

Natural disasters are terrible and horible, and we can only hope they don't happen. The people chanting "help" in the streets will get it. It's coming, but you know what- it can only go so fast.

 

In the end, I have no doubt certain things could have been done better here, but I don't know how much better.

427106[/snapback]

 

 

YAY!!! Someone who can see what I'm saying! It's only taken a week.

[Lemur King]

YAY!!! Someone who can see what I'm saying! It's only taken a week.

427176[/snapback]

 

I take it back.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I take it back.

427182[/snapback]

 

Aw, now, see...this is just plain bitterness. Admit I made a valid point. I'm complimenting you on yours.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Your exaggeration aside... NOLA was VERY WORKABLE and cheap compared to the above disasters.

 

The can divert the Niagara River?  They can work around NOLA.

427117[/snapback]

 

And considering the vital nature of New Orleans' port to the nation's economy and national security, I'd have been willing to take a billion out of DoD's budget to shore up the levees. (Hell, I'm willing to cancel the bull sh-- FCS, DD(X), and LCS projects to subsidize the price of hamburger).

 

The real problem is: how many people do you think ever heard about the funding slashes before? A $70M cut in the federal budget doesn't get a hell of a lot of press...and even if it did, most people are embarrassingly unable to do the common-sense risk-reward analysis that shows that spending $70M to prevent the dozens of billions of dollars disaster we've had might be a good trade.

 

But it's like I said yesterday: that's the definition of government. The short-term trade-off of a $70M budget item for a long-term risk of a multi-billion dollar cost looks good to people who can look at that risk and say "Well, it's not likely to happen on my watch." That holds as true for the President and Congress as it does for that pinhead of a mayor in New Orleans.

[ExiledInIllinois]

And considering the vital nature of New Orleans' port to the nation's economy and national security, I'd have been willing to take a billion out of DoD's budget to shore up the levees.  (Hell, I'm willing to cancel the bull sh-- FCS, DD(X), and LCS projects to subsidize the price of hamburger).

 

The real problem is: how many people do you think ever heard about the funding slashes before?  A $70M cut in the federal budget doesn't get a hell of a lot of press...and even if it did, most people are embarrassingly unable to do the common-sense risk-reward analysis that shows that spending $70M to prevent the dozens of billions of dollars disaster we've had might be a good trade. 

 

But it's like I said yesterday: that's the definition of government.  The short-term trade-off of a $70M budget item for a long-term risk of a multi-billion dollar cost looks good to people who can look at that risk and say "Well, it's not likely to happen on my watch."  That holds as true for the President and Congress as it does for that pinhead of a mayor in New Orleans.

427195[/snapback]

 

So true... It just leaves a bad taste in your mouth the whole mess.

 

Don't get me wrong we are doing everything and trying... It might not be going smoothly... I wish it was faster but understand.

 

Again... Just a shame, a cryin' shame that so many are myopic.

[erynthered]

I lived through Hurricane Andrew down here in Miami.  At the time, I lived in Coconut Grove.  For those of you unfamiliar with the Grove, it has its nice part, which is right next door to a part of the city that is not so safe.

 

George H.W. Bush sent down the National Guard to keep law and order.  In fact, there were troops right on my street corner, and I was very happy to have them there.

 

There is absolutely no excuse for looting (especially the looting of electronics etc.)  It would be nice to think that there would be no looting in these types of situations, but it is extremely naive of anyone to think there would not be.  It is expecially naive to think that hungry people would not become desperate.  If my three year old son had to go through what these people are going through, I would do ANYTHING I could to feed him.

 

People are dying of dehydration and not receiving basic items that FEMA is supposed to provide.

 

To argue that the failure to provide security and the basic necessities was not a mistake of monumental proportions is foolish.  This is what we should be able to expect and demand of our government in times like these.  Otherwise, we should expect anarchy, which is what we have now in New Orleans.

426787[/snapback]

 

 

without reading the rest of this thread, I think you're wrong. The national Guard is not Federal, so only the Gov of the state can call them up. I may be wrong, but I believe I read that somewhere

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

without reading the rest of this thread, I think you're wrong. The national Guard is not Federal, so only the Gov of the state can call them up. I may be wrong, but I believe I read that somewhere

427311[/snapback]

 

Pretty much. The National Guard of each state can be called up by the feds for duty with the army, but in the absence of that they're at the disposal of the governor of a state.

 

I don't believe it's in the President's purview at ALL to call up one state's Guard for service in another state, but I'm not sure. I never recall it happening, at least...and don't see it happening now. All the military force the White House is alerting or deploying (ready brigade of the 82nd, for example) is indisputably federal.

[erynthered]

Pretty much.  The National Guard of each state can be called up by the feds for duty with the army, but in the absence of that they're at the disposal of the governor of a state.

 

I don't believe it's in the President's purview at ALL to call up one state's Guard for service in another state, but I'm not sure.  I never recall it happening, at least...and don't see it happening now.  All the military force the White House is alerting or deploying (ready brigade of the 82nd, for example) is indisputably federal.

427321[/snapback]

 

 

Thanks, you must have read that somewhere too.

[Peter]

without reading the rest of this thread, I think you're wrong. The national Guard is not Federal, so only the Gov of the state can call them up. I may be wrong, but I believe I read that somewhere

427311[/snapback]

 

I think that is contrary to what the director of FEMA said last night on Nightline. He said that he had these guys at his disposal.

 

Separate and apart from the National Guard, the federal government has numerous resources at its disposal that it could have deployed earlier. Now that we are getting heat, I think you will see exactly what the federal government is capable of doing for our fellow Americans.

[erynthered]

I think that is contrary to what the director of FEMA said last night on Nightline.  He said that he had these guys at his disposal.

 

Separate and apart from the National Guard, the federal government has numerous resources at its disposal that it could have deployed earlier.  Now that we are getting heat, I think you will see exactly what the federal government is capable of doing for our fellow Americans.

427344[/snapback]

 

 

U.S. militia. The militia is authorized by the Constitution of the United States, which also defines the militia’s functions and the federal and state role. Article 1, Section 8 provides that Congress shall have the power to call forth “the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Congress was entrusted with organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, but the appointment of officers and the training of the militia were reserved to the states. Further provisions were made in the Second Amendment. In peacetime the National Guard is placed under state jurisdiction and can be used by governors to quell local disturbances, as in Newark and Detroit riots in 1967, and to help in times of local disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. In times of war or other emergencies the National Guard is absorbed into the active service of the United States and the president is commander in chief. The National Guard has been partially mobilized during the Korean War, the Berlin crisis of 1961, and the Persian Gulf War and for peacekeeping in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The National Guard’s equipment and personnel are standardized to conform with U.S. army regulations. Enlistment is voluntary; compensation, paid by the federal government, is given for periods of drill and field training. The Air National Guard was formed in 1947.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it was Lawton Chiles

[Chef Jim]

I think that is contrary to what the director of FEMA said last night on Nightline.  He said that he had these guys at his disposal.

 

Separate and apart from the National Guard, the federal government has numerous resources at its disposal that it could have deployed earlier.  Now that we are getting heat, I think you will see exactly what the federal government is capable of doing for our fellow Americans.

427344[/snapback]

 

Based on their performance to date, I would not believe anything that came from FEMA. I'm going out this weekend and prepare myself for the next big SoCal earthquake. Because I'm not relying on those morons.

[erynthered]

Based on their performance to date, I would not believe anything that came from FEMA.  I'm going out this weekend and prepare myself for the next big SoCal earthquake.  Because I'm not relying on those morons.

427651[/snapback]

 

 

Stop............You're not suppose to be pro-active in your own life? WTF?

 

 

 

Just do what my little one does. She says " sit on whop?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Translation= sit on lap