You're right, it's the media!

[Alaska Darin]

It's honestly hard to believe anyone buying government accounting as their reason to think the S.S. problem isn't gigantic. It's huge and it's going to be REALLY huge in 20 years - when it's going to be wickedly expensive to "fix."

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I still remember a lot of discussion of the integrety of the walls before the storm hit if the  water rose to near the top.  I vaguely remember CNN ran some sort of diagram and there was concern that in certain areas the soil would not hold the wall.  The army corp guy thought it would...but there was some engineering expert who cast doubt on old sections of the levee, regardless...

 

...I was just pointing out that your pitbull like defense of Bush's is inconsitent with your criticism of the mayor and you try and switch the focus to him off the President.  Granted the mayor is an idiot, just wish you would acknowledge the Admin's failure and Bush's disengagement.

 

Probably too much to ask.

617766[/snapback]

 

Unless you want to talk about the federal governments failure over a decades-long span, it's irrelevent. Somebody, anybody...please tell me how the federal government was supposed to address the possibility of the levees being topped or breached 48 hours before the storm hit. And please do so keeping in mind that the federal government does not - can not, even - usurp the authority of local governments in these situations.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I think you're off by a factor of $1,000 in that estimate.  If you want a good proxy for the SS troubles look at steel & Big 3.  Those pensions don't look so hot now.  Same thing with SS.  The dangerous thing about your friends' solution for the defined benefit plans is estimating future contributions based on population growth and immigration.  It's a far safer bet to switch to defined contribution.  But then, you actually put people in charge of their lives.

 

Ps - the problem is when the fund starts being depleted, because as a trust fund, you never want to be in a position when you start tapping principal.  There's a reason why college endowments only live on the investment income, and ones that don't, aren't around anymore.

617828[/snapback]

That part I agree with and understand, still, I am basing my opinion on a former OMB guys interpretation, not actual numbers. I will be the first to say I am not an expert.

Still don't want to privatize or turn it over to stock market.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I will be the first to say I am not an expert.

617835[/snapback]

 

I think you're the first to ever say that about anything in the history of this board.

[Ghost of BiB]

I think you're the first to ever say that about anything in the history of this board.  

617837[/snapback]

 

Not true. You admitted not having a few obscure facts off the top of your head about a minor flank skirmish during the Battle of Crecy, once. So what's with this false humility?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Unless you want to talk about the federal governments failure over a decades-long span, it's irrelevent.  Somebody, anybody...please tell me how the federal government was supposed to address the possibility of the levees being topped or breached 48 hours before the storm hit.  And please do so keeping in mind that the federal government does not - can not, even - usurp the authority of local governments in these situations.

617834[/snapback]

Heck the locals pleaded with them to do so, sent them letters to the effect, asked for the army/national guard to show up, they never got the call. Don't know all the bureaucratic red tape that prevented it, but shoot, as an old Buffalo boy who got my first paper route the day the Blizzard of 77 hit, and was affected by Hurrican Isabel personally, I have seen better responses. Something on a small scale so close to D.C. and you would've thought they had learned some lessons? Don't explain why they couldn't do something, explain to me how the couldv'e gotten around these snafus? That is what leadership is all about!

 

In my experience it is usually something silly?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Heck the locals pleaded with them to do so, sent them letters to the effect, asked for the army/national guard to show up, they never got the call.

 

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought we were talking about what they knew and did before the storm, not after. I've never heard a thing about requests for troops before the storm hit.

 

And as a point of fact: the National Guard are state, not local forces. Although the NG can be federalized into the Army, the federal government can't do so to send the Arkansas NG to Louisiana; the governor of LA has to make the request to the governor of Arkansas. Blaming the federal government for not deploying state assets for something that's the responsibility of a municipality in a completely different state is disingenious at best.

 

  Don't know all the bureaucratic red tape that prevented it, but shoot, as an old Buffalo boy who got my first paper route the day the Blizzard of 77 hit, and was affected by Hurrican Isabel personally, I have seen better responses.  Something on a small scale so close to D.C. and you would've thought they had learned some lessons?  Don't explain why they couldn't do something, explain to me how the couldv'e gotten around these snafus?  That is what leadership is all about!

 

In my experience it is usually something silly?

617841[/snapback]

 

Again, are we talking about the response, AFTER the storm? Or the preparation BEFORE the storm? In the examples you quote (and I have vivid memories of both as well), I don't recall the federal government being any more prescient or responsive than they were with Katrina. Ditto hurricane Andrew, which my wife went through (and the response to which was also roundly criticized as a total !@#$-up). In fact, as I recall, all the initial response was at the local and state level; it took a considerable amount of time for any federal resources to get into the region.

 

I know it took a considerable amount of time with Andrew, because that storm did roughly the same thing Katrina did: smash the surrounding infrastructure, to the point where simply moving from place to place was problematic. It took about 7-10 days for relief to get over dry land to the worst-hit locations after Andrew went through...in New Orleans, they moved about twice as much twice as fast into the middle of a swamp. Yet the effort for Katrina is now perceived as being worse than that for Andrew. And that seems somehow sensible to people?

 

And all that blather is aside from the issue of the role the federal government is supposed to play in these situations. Never mind what we think the government should do, what we think they're capable of, what we think the elected officials are capable of understanding, and answer one simple question: what is the role of the federal government in a natural disaster such as a hurricane? Not "what should their role be"...what is it? A lot of the criticism lobbed at the federal government for Katrina seems to be nothing more than "the government didn't do what I think they should do", with no consideration given to whether or not what one thinks they should do is their actual job. That, I think, would be a good place to start...drop all the whiny bull sh--, and figure out exactly what was and was not the federal responsibility. After that...then we can figure out if the !@#$ed up or not, and even talk about whether or not they should take on more responsibility.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood.  I thought we were talking about what they knew and did before the storm, not after.  I've never heard a thing about requests for troops before the storm hit. 

 

And as a point of fact: the National Guard are state, not local forces.  Although the NG can be federalized into the Army, the federal government can't do so to send the Arkansas NG to Louisiana; the governor of LA has to make the request to the governor of Arkansas.  Blaming the federal government for not deploying state assets for something that's the responsibility of a municipality in a completely different state is disingenious at best.

Again, are we talking about the response, AFTER the storm?  Or the preparation BEFORE the storm?  In the examples you quote (and I have vivid memories of both as well), I don't recall the federal government being any more prescient or responsive than they were with Katrina.  Ditto hurricane Andrew, which my wife went through (and the response to which was also roundly criticized as a total !@#$-up).  In fact, as I recall, all the initial response was at the local and state level; it took a considerable amount of time for any federal resources to get into the region. 

 

I know it took a considerable amount of time with Andrew, because that storm did roughly the same thing Katrina did: smash the surrounding infrastructure, to the point where simply moving from place to place was problematic.  It took about 7-10 days for relief to get over dry land to the worst-hit locations after Andrew went through...in New Orleans, they moved about twice as much twice as fast into the middle of a swamp.  Yet the effort for Katrina is now perceived as being worse than that for Andrew.  And that seems somehow sensible to people? 

 

And all that blather is aside from the issue of the role the federal government is supposed to play in these situations.  Never mind what we think the government should do, what we think they're capable of, what we think the elected officials are capable of understanding, and answer one simple question: what is the role of the federal government in a natural disaster such as a hurricane?  Not "what should their role be"...what is it?  A lot of the criticism lobbed at the federal government for Katrina seems to be nothing more than "the government didn't do what I think they should do", with no consideration given to whether or not what one thinks they should do is their actual job.  That, I think, would be a good place to start...drop all the whiny bull sh--, and figure out exactly what was and was not the federal responsibility.  After that...then we can figure out if the !@#$ed up or not, and even talk about whether or not they should take on more responsibility.

617862[/snapback]

 

I thought there were requests before and after to mobolize fed assistance, NG you are right..state, sorry. Hey, I am not saying the states and locals didn't F up, just that the Feds are just as culpable, I wish the admin opologists would just fess up, they F'd up at the high levels.

 

P.S. Bush just looked silly and incompetent sitting there not leading the meeting or at least actively participating.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I thought there were requests before and after to mobolize fed assistance, NG you are right..state, sorry.  Hey, I am not saying the states and locals didn't F up, just that the Feds are just as culpable, I wish the admin opologists would just fess up, they F'd up at the high levels.

 

P.S. Bush just looked silly and incompetent sitting there not leading the meeting or at least actively participating.

617889[/snapback]

And another thing, NO is getting a lot of help, though still needs a lot more, what amazed me is the lack of help going to other areas hit just as bad if not worse.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I thought there were requests before and after to mobolize fed assistance, NG you are right..state, sorry.

 

I've never heard of any request beforehand...though if there were, they didn't carry the same desperate impact (for the simple matter that nothing had happened yet), and they sure as hell weren't to DoD, as DoD involvement would have violated a couple dozen laws (and probably did once they did get involved...which I'm kind of surprised no one outside of Cindy Sheehan's jumped all over yet.)

 

Hey, I am not saying the states and locals didn't F up, just that the Feds are just as culpable, I wish the admin opologists would just fess up, they F'd up at the high levels.

 

But again...f'ed up how? What the federal government did NOT do is meet public expectations. All I'm saying is that those expectations may very well be wrong. Putting it in terms I'm familiar with (namely: military), the reality is that the relief effort was the equivalent of deploying two full divisions across 150 miles to a desolate swamp - literally, as New Orleans had roughly the infrastructure of a swamp at the time, and the surrounding area was smashed. And they did it in three days. Public expectation seems to be that it should have happened quicker, which is frankly impossible (or worse, that it should have happened before the storm, which is frankly stupid, as you don't preposition your relief in the rescue zone, because then they become victims themselves. )

 

Public expectation also seems to be that the feds should have stepped in early - very early, apparently. I seem to be hearing arguments that federal authority should have been assumed, and local authority preempted, the very moment the mandatory evacuation was declared. And again, that gets back to my point: is that something the federal government's supposed to do? What, exactly, is wrong here, the government's actions, or the public's expectations? It's very easy to simply dismiss arguments "apologizing" for the federal response when people don't even know what the response is supposed to be.

 

P.S. Bush just looked silly and incompetent sitting there not leading the meeting or at least actively participating.

617889[/snapback]

 

Guess you haven't seen any of his State of The Union Addresses. When has Bush ever not looked silly and incompetent?

 

And another thing, NO is getting a lot of help, though still needs a lot more, what amazed me is the lack of help going to other areas hit just as bad if not worse.

617890[/snapback]

 

Largely because New Orleans' trauma was televised, hence New Orleans sucked up forces that could have been deployed elsewhere. Forty-some FEMA emergency medical teams to New Orleans' airport (by Wednesday morning...36 hours after the levees were reported breached. Lousy response that. ) That's something like three times as many as FEMA deployed to ALL hurricanes in 2005...which was a bad hurricane year.

[TPS]

You're saying that like it's a bad thing.

 

Do you really believe that a "unilateralist" US/UK global policy is that much worse than seeking consent from the Sino-Franco-Russian-UN hodgepodge?  Heaven knows, that quartet has a deep history of helping out mankind, and that commitment to human rights is codified in their very existence.

617713[/snapback]

 

Yes, I should've added, "and they've completely bungled it."

[Ghost of BiB]

Yes, I should've added, "and they've completely bungled it."

617957[/snapback]

 

Not all of it, but Iraq catches a lot of press.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I've never heard of any request beforehand...though if there were, they didn't carry the same desperate impact (for the simple matter that nothing had happened yet), and they sure as hell weren't to DoD, as DoD involvement would have violated a couple dozen laws (and probably did once they did get involved...which I'm kind of surprised no one outside of Cindy Sheehan's jumped all over yet.)

But again...f'ed up how?  What the federal government did NOT do is meet public expectations.  All I'm saying is that those expectations may very well be wrong.  Putting it in terms I'm familiar with (namely: military), the reality is that the relief effort was the equivalent of deploying two full divisions across 150 miles to a desolate swamp - literally, as New Orleans had roughly the infrastructure of a swamp at the time, and the surrounding area was smashed.  And they did it in three days.  Public expectation seems to be that it should have happened quicker, which is frankly impossible (or worse, that it should have happened before the storm, which is frankly stupid, as you don't preposition your relief in the rescue zone, because then they become victims themselves.  )

 

Public expectation also seems to be that the feds should have stepped in early - very early, apparently.  I seem to be hearing arguments that federal authority should have been assumed, and local authority preempted, the very moment the mandatory evacuation was declared.  And again, that gets back to my point: is that something the federal government's supposed to do?  What, exactly, is wrong here, the government's actions, or the public's expectations?  It's very easy to simply dismiss arguments "apologizing" for the federal response when people don't even know what the response is supposed to be. 

Guess you haven't seen any of his State of The Union Addresses.  When has Bush ever not looked silly and incompetent? 

Largely because New Orleans' trauma was televised, hence New Orleans sucked up forces that could have been deployed elsewhere.  Forty-some FEMA emergency medical teams to New Orleans' airport (by Wednesday morning...36 hours after the levees were reported breached.  Lousy response that.  )  That's something like three times as many as FEMA deployed to ALL hurricanes in 2005...which was a bad hurricane year.

617919[/snapback]

 

So what you are saying is that the expectations on the Feds were unreasonable, I might buy that, except they were so imcompetent in setting them or warning folks that they couldn't be met.

 

Kinda like when I did Ag work and folks wanted to be able to eat hamburger meat raw without worry of any bacteria...folks it is not going to happen...cook your damn meat if you don't want to worry about e-coli. Otherwise the process of cutting up meat is going to expose the meat to it, it is in the air, then grinding it just mixes it in.

 

Of course at USDA we were not allowed to say that#$%! Meat industry didn't want to create a panic.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

So what you are saying is that the expectations on the Feds were unreasonable, I might buy that, except they were so imcompetent in setting them or warning folks that they couldn't be met. 

618037[/snapback]

 

And thus we get back to what I've been saying for years: this administration sucks at marketing. I.e., you'll get no argument from me.

 

Although, in truth, I think part of the problem is that your average American sees things like Jack Bauer driving across LA in ten minutes on a regular basis, so how are they ever going to understand or accept that moving a few tens of thousands of rescue workers into a drowned city is going to take a little longer... I don't know how anyone competes against that constant bombardment of sh--...

[Alaska Darin]

And thus we get back to what I've been saying for years: this administration sucks at marketing.  I.e., you'll get no argument from me.

 

Although, in truth, I think part of the problem is that your average American sees things like Jack Bauer driving across LA in ten minutes on a regular basis, so how are they ever going to understand or accept that moving a few tens of thousands of rescue workers into a drowned city is going to take a little longer...    I don't know how anyone competes against that constant bombardment of sh--...

618047[/snapback]

Now you've done it.

[GG]

And thus we get back to what I've been saying for years: this administration sucks at marketing.  I.e., you'll get no argument from me.

 

Although, in truth, I think part of the problem is that your average American sees things like Jack Bauer driving across LA in ten minutes on a regular basis, so how are they ever going to understand or accept that moving a few tens of thousands of rescue workers into a drowned city is going to take a little longer...    I don't know how anyone competes against that constant bombardment of sh--...

618047[/snapback]

 

And in the continuation of life imitating art, on Thursday's Imus Jeff Greenfield referred to Jack Bauer as an analogy of why Americans expect things to end up fine in the end.

 

Except in his explanation, Greenfield didn't mock the inanity of how real life is supposed to mirror scripted entertainment, but was dead serious in saying that the government should strive to perform to that level, because that's what people now expect.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

And in the continuation of life imitating art, on Thursday's Imus Jeff Greenfield referred to Jack Bauer as an analogy of why Americans expect things to end up fine in the end. 

 

Except in his explanation, Greenfield didn't mock the inanity of how real life is supposed to mirror scripted entertainment, but was dead serious in saying that the government should strive to perform to that level, because that's what people now expect.

618120[/snapback]

 

 

We need a "primal scream" emoticon.

[Scraps]

And in the continuation of life imitating art, on Thursday's Imus Jeff Greenfield referred to Jack Bauer as an analogy of why Americans expect things to end up fine in the end. 

 

Except in his explanation, Greenfield didn't mock the inanity of how real life is supposed to mirror scripted entertainment, but was dead serious in saying that the government should strive to perform to that level, because that's what people now expect.

618120[/snapback]

 

I've read stories about how CSI is making it more difficult for prosecutors to secure convictions. Jurists expect forensic evidence to be on the same level as CSI shows and when it doesn't turn out that way, many people doubt the prosecution or think they are hiding something.

[Ghost of BiB]

But again...f'ed up how? What the federal government did NOT do is meet public expectations. All I'm saying is that those expectations may very well be wrong. Putting it in terms I'm familiar with (namely: military), the reality is that the relief effort was the equivalent of deploying two full divisions across 150 miles to a desolate swamp - literally, as New Orleans had roughly the infrastructure of a swamp at the time, and the surrounding area was smashed. And they did it in three days. Public expectation seems to be that it should have happened quicker, which is frankly impossible (or worse, that it should have happened before the storm, which is frankly stupid, as you don't preposition your relief in the rescue zone, because then they become victims themselves. )

 

Public expectation also seems to be that the feds should have stepped in early - very early, apparently. I seem to be hearing arguments that federal authority should have been assumed, and local authority preempted, the very moment the mandatory evacuation was declared. And again, that gets back to my point: is that something the federal government's supposed to do? What, exactly, is wrong here, the government's actions, or the public's expectations? It's very easy to simply dismiss arguments "apologizing" for the federal response when people don't even know what the response is supposed to be.

 

Where's George Patton when you need him?

 

You make too much sense sometimes, Tom. A lot of this ground was covered at the time, we even had a forum for it. But something popped up on TV, so here we go again.

[Alaska Darin]

Where's George Patton when you need him?

 

You make too much sense sometimes, Tom. A lot of this ground was covered at the time, we even had a forum for it. But something popped up on TV, so here we go again.

618298[/snapback]

Never underestimate the stupidity of large groups of people.