Political Crossfire Forums

[Alizard]

perdidochas wrote: JohnM wrote: I said I had really didn't collectively care, not that I didn't care about all of them. I am sure that there are at least 1,800 people down there that aren't dumbasses and could have houses by now. How can you tell me to have some compassion when you just waved off the fact that instead of building those 1800 houses, the Chocolate City decided to build a FOOTBALL STADIUM?

1) It's not the government's job to replace private citizen's houses--they should have insurance for that.



Oh they did..... but what you obviously fail to realize is that most of the insurance was purchased FROM THE GOVERNMENT. The biggest carrier of flood insurance is none other than the government, as FEMA authorizes private carriers to issue policies which thay back.

Want to know what happened after katrina?

FEMA ordered them to not pay claims for about six months while the people who thought they had insurance backed by the US government ROTTED and lived in their cars.

Funny..... I never hear the Bush apologists mentioning that.....


Quote: November 17, 2005
Stranded without Recourse: FEMA Halts Payment of Flood-Insurance Claims
The insurance industry long has inculcated the belief that, in the policyholder’s time of need, the insurer will be a steadfast source of protection, compensation, and prompt relief. Over the past couple of months, close to a quarter million policyholders have turned to their (federally backed) flood insurers and filed claims under flood-insurance policies for losses from Katrina, Rita and Wilma. There are nearly 100 insurance companies whose write-your-own (WYO) flood-insurance policies are backed by FEMA, and FEMA – amazingly, alarmingly – has told those insurers to stop paying claims


http://www.insurancescrawl.com/archives/2005/11/stranded_withou.html

I think they eventually got paid.

But what's a few months of sleeping in your car?

You can pretend you're camping out.....

[Alizard]

JohnM wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Newb wrote: Quote: This was in reference to the Superdome...not housing...and the federal government, while covering the majority of the cost, did not take it all.

so local gov needed fed gov help to rebuild the superdome, and did not work on housing first? tell me how that is not backwards

The local government's job is not to rebuild houses. That's a private matter. The local government didnt' pay for the rebuilding of the Superdome--that's a state owned thing.
Fine, let the citizens rebuild the houses. But just do something useful with the money.

They did .

They spent it on something which in the long run generates POSITIVE REVENUE for the city.....

That means it makes money.

How much more useful do you want?

[Alizard]

JohnM wrote: Alizard wrote:
You are correct, of course, getting the stadium back quickly was essential to keeping their franchise which is a net money maker for the city.
Please provide some evidence to prove this instead of talking out of your ass. Just because it used to be a money maker does not mean people will want to go see the games now.

So here is what you said to me:

1) The NO franchise used to be a money maker...

2) Prove to me that it WILL AGAIN make money in the FUTURE, or else you are talking out of your ass.


EXCUSE ME? You need me to PROVE a future event or else you will claim I am "talking out of my ass"?

The fact that NO's #1 money industry is tourism and they need events to attract it does not give you a clue that a Domed stadium is a better investment than some new tenament houses?

I am not going to bother witha statement that idiotic.

[Alizard]

Kane wrote: The Newb wrote: it all starts somewhere first the levees then the homes......

if the fed gov spends on the levees what makes you think la gov will also not expect home rebuilding?

You mean besides the funding for the levees from the Federal Government prior to Katrina?

Yeah... why didn't that dirt poor state have enough money for the levee improvement projects?

Quote: Bush Cut Funding

Blumenthal's much-quoted article in salon.com carried the headline: "No one can say they didn't see it coming." And it said the Bush administration cut flood-control funding "to pay for the Iraq war."

He continues:

Blumenthal: With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico . But the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature.

…By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year…forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze.

We can confirm that funding was cut. The project most closely associated with preventing flooding in New Orleans was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Hurricane Protection Project, which was “designed to protect residents between Lake Pontchartrain and the Missisippi River levee from surges in Lake Pontchartrain,” according to a fact sheet from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (The fact sheet is dated May 23, long before Katrina). The multi-decade project involved building new levees, enlarging existing levees, and updating other protections like floodwalls. It was scheduled to be completed in 2015.

Over at least the past several budget cycles, the Corps has received substantially less money than it requested for the Lake Pontchartrain project, even though Congress restored much of the money the President cut from the amount the Corps requested.

In fiscal year 2004, the Corps requested $11 million for the project. The President’s budget allocated $3 million, and Congress furnished $5.5 million. Similarly, in fiscal 2005 the Corps requested $22.5 million, which the President cut to $3.9 million in his budget. Congress increased that to $5.5 million. “This was insufficient to fund new construction contracts,” according to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ project fact sheet. The Corps reported that “seven new contracts are being delayed due to lack funds” [sic].

The President proposed $3 million for the project in the budget for fiscal 2006, which begins Oct. 1. “This will be insufficient to fund new construction projects,” the fact sheet stated. It says the Corps “could spend $20 million if funds were provided.” The Corps of Engineers goes on to say:


http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html

[Alizard]

The Newb wrote: Kane wrote: The Newb wrote: it all starts somewhere first the levees then the homes......

if the fed gov spends on the levees what makes you think la gov will also not expect home rebuilding?

You mean besides the funding for the levees from the Federal Government prior to Katrina?

duh! :roll:

Quote: the la gov dropped the ball not the fed gov

I wish I had a dollar for ever time I have heard that lie.

FEMA shafted people who bought and paid for insurance and Bush cut funding to the ongoing project to shore up the levees.

Confronted with those facts you conclude:

Quote:
the la gov dropped the ball not the fed gov


Enough said.

[Snake]

5 consecutive posts on one page. That has to be a record somewhere.

[JohnM]

My post was badly worded, so I can understand how you misinterpreted my intentions. Please tell me how building a football stadium aids in disaster relief. You try to use the argument that it used to be a huge moneymaker, but it is glaringly obvious that the tourism part of NO is down the hole for a while, and the revenue generated by the stadium will not justify it being built so early.

I am sure that the people whose money funded that stadium would like some form of government aid. I don't think that they consider a football stadium a form of government aid. I can think of many more uses for all those millions of dollars. If you had no home, would you really give a s**t about football?
Alizard wrote: JohnM wrote: Alizard wrote:
You are correct, of course, getting the stadium back quickly was essential to keeping their franchise which is a net money maker for the city.
Please provide some evidence to prove this instead of talking out of your ass. Just because it used to be a money maker does not mean people will want to go see the games now.

So here is what you said to me:

1) The NO franchise used to be a money maker...

2) Prove to me that it WILL AGAIN make money in the FUTURE, or else you are talking out of your ass.


EXCUSE ME? You need me to PROVE a future event or else you will claim I am "talking out of my ass"?

The fact that NO's #1 money industry is tourism and they need events to attract it does not give you a clue that a Domed stadium is a better investment than some new tenament houses?

I am not going to bother witha statement that idiotic.

[JohnM]

Alizard wrote: JohnM wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Newb wrote: Quote: This was in reference to the Superdome...not housing...and the federal government, while covering the majority of the cost, did not take it all.

so local gov needed fed gov help to rebuild the superdome, and did not work on housing first? tell me how that is not backwards

The local government's job is not to rebuild houses. That's a private matter. The local government didnt' pay for the rebuilding of the Superdome--that's a state owned thing.
Fine, let the citizens rebuild the houses. But just do something useful with the money.

They did .

They spent it on something which in the long run generates POSITIVE REVENUE for the city.....

That means it makes money.

How much more useful do you want?
Perhaps a city that doesn't have piles of debris in the street, and maybe even one that might be safe from future flooding.

[Alizard]

JohnM wrote: My post was badly worded, so I can understand how you misinterpreted my intentions. Please tell me how building a football stadium aids in disaster relief. You try to use the argument that it used to be a huge moneymaker, but it is glaringly obvious that the tourism part of NO is down the hole for a while, and the revenue generated by the stadium will not justify it being built so early.

I am sure that the people whose money funded that stadium would like some form of government aid. I don't think that they consider a football stadium a form of government aid. I can think of many more uses for all those millions of dollars. If you had no home, would you really give a s**t about football?

I have a home and I don't give a crap about football. So what?

"My post was badly worded, so I can understand how you misinterpreted my intentions. Please tell me how building a football stadium aids in disaster relief. "

Non-sequitur, false dilemma. Those are not the only two options. It is not EITHER you must spend a dollar on disaster relief or the Dome.

Look at any major city and there are thousands of homeless people, yet they choose to fund tax increases to build a new mall, a new stadium, a new park....

Your argument is defective because it is founded on the premise that no city should put money into a "prestige project" as long as there are poor people who need houses. That doesn't fly. NO will do what it can with the resources it has. If the dome was bad move, the mayor will get bounced at the next election. That's how accountability works. if the mayor succeeds in getting some businesses back by showing that they are going to build up a city and not just rows of project housing, then he will be a hero. Point is, his decision wasn't all that dumb.... especially compared to the decisions Bush makes on adaily basis and I think (in the long run) it will work. NO needs to get revenue, businesses who pay taxes so that they can rebuild their city... the federal government sure as hell isn't going to help do it.

Quote: You try to use the argument that it used to be a huge moneymaker, but it is glaringly obvious that the tourism part of NO is down the hole for a while, and the revenue generated by the stadium will not justify it being built so early.


You're completely wrong for two reasons:

1) If the dome was not finished (and very quickly) the saints would have moved to another city and NEVER come back. There was a time stamp on that and it could never be repeated.

2) Tourism may be down for a while, but how will you get it back: by dumping all available resources into city welfare? How is that going to get tourism jump started?


Quote: I am sure that the people whose money funded that stadium would like some form of government aid.

Yes, just about everybody in NO has their hand out expecting some kind of free money at this point. And if I had a magic money machine, I'd print them up a bucket full.

Quote: I don't think that they consider a football stadium a form of government aid.

True, but that falls back on your defective argument that the only legitimate investment at this point must be government aid.

Quote: I can think of many more uses for all those millions of dollars.

Actually, you can't. The dome was not just for football but also conventions, expositions and all kinds of local events. It did draw bodies (and dollars) although the exact amount is hard to say.

The bottom line is that the last thing a rattlesnake would give up is his fangs because that's how he survives.... and the first thing NO needed to put back was the prime mover in it's tourism industry. If they had let the Saints get away, they would just death spiral into another poor town. That may eventually happen anyway, but they are still fighting.

[Alizard]

Another duplicate post courtesy of one of the dozen server crashes here.

And the server crashed AGAIN when I tried to post this.

I wonder how many times this one will appear?

[Alizard]

JohnM wrote: Alizard wrote: JohnM wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Newb wrote: Quote: This was in reference to the Superdome...not housing...and the federal government, while covering the majority of the cost, did not take it all.

so local gov needed fed gov help to rebuild the superdome, and did not work on housing first? tell me how that is not backwards

The local government's job is not to rebuild houses. That's a private matter. The local government didnt' pay for the rebuilding of the Superdome--that's a state owned thing.
Fine, let the citizens rebuild the houses. But just do something useful with the money.

They did .

They spent it on something which in the long run generates POSITIVE REVENUE for the city.....

That means it makes money.

How much more useful do you want?
Perhaps a city that doesn't have piles of debris in the street, and maybe even one that might be safe from future flooding.

You ever been to Louisiana? I grew up there, all my in-laws live there still. It is dirt poor. Exactly where will they get the BILLIONS to build a stable enough levee system to prevent "future flooding"?

Got any bright ideas? I'd love to hear them.

The Fed had a shared COE project going which was taking way too long and then Bush starved the funding to it.

Exactly how is that state supposed to magically come up with all that money?

As for debris in the streets, that ain't the problem. The problem is that nobody will build in a city that will flood again at the next CAT3 hurricane.

Speaking of poor:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Regional/Features/2006/july/altered_states.cfm


Look at the curve labeled :

State Relative Incomes in 2004

Louisiana is about five from the end, running about 15% below the national average of all states.

[The Newb]

Alizard wrote: Another duplicate post courtesy of one of the dozen server crashes here.

And the server crashed AGAIN when I tried to post this.

I wonder how many times this one will appear?

its all bushes fault he crashed the server to stop you from making a statement :lol:

[JohnM]

Alizard wrote:
I have a home and I don't give a crap about football. So what?

"My post was badly worded, so I can understand how you misinterpreted my intentions. Please tell me how building a football stadium aids in disaster relief. "

Non-sequitur, false dilemma. Those are not the only two options. It is not EITHER you must spend a dollar on disaster relief or the Dome.

Mmmhmm, perhaps my post wasn't badly worded and you are just as thick as you appear. Where did I say that the only two options were government aid and a football stadium? I asked a simple question that you had no answer for, so you tried a sidestep. Since we are debating the reasons for building a football stadium, I saw no reason to bring up other options.

Quote: Look at any major city and there are thousands of homeless people, yet they choose to fund tax increases to build a new mall, a new stadium, a new park....
Yes, well, in most major cities, the majority of the people aren't homeless are they?

Quote: Your argument is defective because it is founded on the premise that no city should put money into a "prestige project" as long as there are poor people who need houses.
Really? Where did I say that? I said that in the wake of a major disaster, a football stadium should not take priority over the people.

Quote: That doesn't fly. NO will do what it can with the resources it has. If the dome was bad move, the mayor will get bounced at the next election.
That is BS and you know it. If what you just said was true, how did Nagin get re-elected after his blatantly racist remarks and his piss poor performance in the wake of Katrina?
Quote: That's how accountability works. if the mayor succeeds in getting some businesses back by showing that they are going to build up a city and not just rows of project housing, then he will be a hero.
It is generally a good idea to actually have people living in the city. What makes you think that business' will come back to NO, especially when there it is a fraction of what it used to be, population wise?
Quote: Point is, his decision wasn't all that dumb.... especially compared to the decisions Bush makes on a daily basis and I think (in the long run) it will work.
What do Bush's daily decisions have to do with Nagin rebuilding a football just a year after one of the most devastating natural disasters in the region hit?
Quote: NO needs to get revenue, businesses who pay taxes so that they can rebuild their city... the federal government sure as hell isn't going to help do it.
Once again, you assume that businesses will return. What would lure a business to New Orleans?

Quote: You're completely wrong for two reasons:

1) If the dome was not finished (and very quickly) the saints would have moved to another city and NEVER come back. There was a time stamp on that and it could never be repeated.
Guess what... they could have gotten another team at a later time.

Quote: 2) Tourism may be down for a while, but how will you get it back:
By rebuilding and cleaning up a city that got absoultely demolished?

Quote: by dumping all available resources into city welfare? How is that going to get tourism jump started?
I stated earlier that it did not have to be welfare projects. They could just clean up the city some.

Quote: Yes, just about everybody in NO has their hand out expecting some kind of free money at this point. And if I had a magic money machine, I'd print them up a bucket full.
I can tell you have a heart of gold

Quote: True, but that falls back on your defective argument that the only legitimate investment at this point must be government aid.
See above

Quote: Actually, you can't. The dome was not just for football but also conventions, expositions and all kinds of local events. It did draw bodies (and dollars) although the exact amount is hard to say.
That was when large amounts of people were actually living there.

Quote: The bottom line is that the last thing a rattlesnake would give up is his fangs because that's how he survives.... and the first thing NO needed to put back was the prime mover in it's tourism industry. If they had let the Saints get away, they would just death spiral into another poor town. That may eventually happen anyway, but they are still fighting.
You don't build a city by making tourist attractions. You build a city by attracting residents, then making tourist attractions to aid the economy. R

[JohnM]

Alizard wrote: JohnM wrote: Alizard wrote: JohnM wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Newb wrote: Quote: This was in reference to the Superdome...not housing...and the federal government, while covering the majority of the cost, did not take it all.

so local gov needed fed gov help to rebuild the superdome, and did not work on housing first? tell me how that is not backwards

The local government's job is not to rebuild houses. That's a private matter. The local government didnt' pay for the rebuilding of the Superdome--that's a state owned thing.
Fine, let the citizens rebuild the houses. But just do something useful with the money.

They did .

They spent it on something which in the long run generates POSITIVE REVENUE for the city.....

That means it makes money.

How much more useful do you want?
Perhaps a city that doesn't have piles of debris in the street, and maybe even one that might be safe from future flooding.

You ever been to Louisiana? I grew up there, all my in-laws live there still. It is dirt poor. Exactly where will they get the BILLIONS to build a stable enough levee system to prevent "future flooding"?

Got any bright ideas? I'd love to hear them.

The Fed had a shared COE project going which was taking way too long and then Bush starved the funding to it.

Exactly how is that state supposed to magically come up with all that money?

As for debris in the streets, that ain't the problem. The problem is that nobody will build in a city that will flood again at the next CAT3 hurricane.

Speaking of poor:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Regional/Features/2006/july/altered_states.cfm


Look at the curve labeled :

State Relative Incomes in 2004

Louisiana is about five from the end, running about 15% below the national average of all states.
I can think of about $180 million that could have helped.
Also, that is a nifty graph. In case you didn't notice, I live in South Carolina, which is a couple places below LA. So please don't insinuate that I don't know about poor states.

[Snake]

Kane wrote: Seattle Pi

Znet

I can find many more. I blame everybody...

The Federal Government is meant to protect it's nations, cities, and citizens, correct? Is nature not deemed to be such a threat? What of all the federal funding sent to the Army Corps of Engineers prior to Katrina?

Missed the point, again. Why build a goddamned stadium when you have levees that are obviously weak? I'm sure they could've pulled even more funding from the many casinos in New Orleans as well. The Louisiana and New Orleans governments shouldn't have expected the federal government to do their job for them. What exactly do they have a governer and a mayor for if the local government isn't willing to get off their asses, take responsability, and get the f*cking job instead of hoping somebody else will do it for them?.

[wyldejackyl]

Because if they take responsibility, and their plan fails, their political career is tarnished forever. Better to "let someone else do it." Yeah, they really care about their constituents alright.. :roll:

[Kane]

Kamel wrote: Kane wrote: Seattle Pi

Znet

I can find many more. I blame everybody...

The Federal Government is meant to protect it's nations, cities, and citizens, correct? Is nature not deemed to be such a threat? What of all the federal funding sent to the Army Corps of Engineers prior to Katrina?

Missed the point, again. Why build a goddamned stadium when you have levees that are obviously weak? I'm sure they could've pulled even more funding from the many casinos in New Orleans as well. The Louisiana and New Orleans governments shouldn't have expected the federal government to do their job for them. What exactly do they have a governer and a mayor for if the local government isn't willing to get off their asses, take responsability, and get the f*cking job instead of hoping somebody else will do it for them?.

Dude...Alizard has already pointed everybody towards the "sufficient" finances of LA. From the casinos? That's a great way to attract business...tax it more. :? God knows LA doesn't need any more of that...

[Kane]

The Newb wrote: Kane wrote: The Newb wrote: it all starts somewhere first the levees then the homes......

if the fed gov spends on the levees what makes you think la gov will also not expect home rebuilding?

You mean besides the funding for the levees from the Federal Government prior to Katrina?

duh! :roll:

the la gov dropped the ball not the fed gov, its fact and if the fed gov bails them out then what have they learned?

that we dont have to do anything all we have to do is blame fed gov and our problems are solved, in furture events how can you condone this?

First off, I was merely proving your assertion that increased federal funding will lead to increased federal funding for new homes highly inaccurate as it's clearly nothing new and the said argument holds no water when compared to years previous to Katrina.

Second, when something is a fact...it's usually backed up by evidence. You seem to wish me to just take your word for it...and you assign specific blame instead of adopting the notion that possibly, just maybe, everybody had a hand in this.

Third, are you arguing that the Federal Government not be involved in this process at all? That it be completely the states responsibility to respond and respond alone?

[Alizard]

JohnM wrote: Alizard wrote: JohnM wrote: Alizard wrote: JohnM wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Newb wrote: Quote: This was in reference to the Superdome...not housing...and the federal government, while covering the majority of the cost, did not take it all.

so local gov needed fed gov help to rebuild the superdome, and did not work on housing first? tell me how that is not backwards

The local government's job is not to rebuild houses. That's a private matter. The local government didnt' pay for the rebuilding of the Superdome--that's a state owned thing.
Fine, let the citizens rebuild the houses. But just do something useful with the money.

They did .

They spent it on something which in the long run generates POSITIVE REVENUE for the city.....

That means it makes money.

How much more useful do you want?
Perhaps a city that doesn't have piles of debris in the street, and maybe even one that might be safe from future flooding.

You ever been to Louisiana? I grew up there, all my in-laws live there still. It is dirt poor. Exactly where will they get the BILLIONS to build a stable enough levee system to prevent "future flooding"?

Got any bright ideas? I'd love to hear them.

The Fed had a shared COE project going which was taking way too long and then Bush starved the funding to it.

Exactly how is that state supposed to magically come up with all that money?

As for debris in the streets, that ain't the problem. The problem is that nobody will build in a city that will flood again at the next CAT3 hurricane.

Speaking of poor:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Regional/Features/2006/july/altered_states.cfm


Look at the curve labeled :

State Relative Incomes in 2004

Louisiana is about five from the end, running about 15% below the national average of all states.
I can think of about $180 million that could have helped.
Also, that is a nifty graph. In case you didn't notice, I live in South Carolina, which is a couple places below LA. So please don't insinuate that I don't know about poor states.

I don't insinuate, I write clearly: and what I say is that anyone who spouts the Bush admin position of "let them eat cake" and claims New Orleans can build it's own levees is totally clueless. And, I might add, just parroting a Bush talking point used to try to deflect blame for FEMA's galactic incompetence.

Louisiana could not possibly generate the revenue it would take to build that levee system, and the Federal government was"helping" to do it..... which is EXACTLY what the FED is supposed to do. The federal government is there to provide for the increased prosperity and safety of all states, not just the ones Bush likes.

The isolationaist position that all states hould have to fend for themselves is contrary to the core founding principle of this country.. if that was true, why do we even need or want a federal government?

[Alizard]

JohnM wrote: Alizard wrote:
I have a home and I don't give a crap about football. So what?

"My post was badly worded, so I can understand how you misinterpreted my intentions. Please tell me how building a football stadium aids in disaster relief. "

Non-sequitur, false dilemma. Those are not the only two options. It is not EITHER you must spend a dollar on disaster relief or the Dome.

Mmmhmm, perhaps my post wasn't badly worded and you are just as thick as you appear.

And that's called "projection". Look it up.


JohnM wrote:

What do Bush's daily decisions have to do with Nagin rebuilding a football just a year after one of the most devastating natural disasters in the region hit?

Simple. The EXACT cast of clowns who are bashing Nagin for what they think is a bad decision are the same people who worship Bush. The point is: hypocrisy doesn't fly with me.


JohnM wrote:
You don't build a city by making tourist attractions. You build a city by attracting residents, then making tourist attractions to aid the economy. R

You don't know any more about what the best course for NO is than a chipmunk knows about brain surgery. You accused me of talking out of my ass because I could not PROVE to your satisfaction that the Dome would be a positive long term revenue source... which means you expect me to predict the future.

Yet, you throw out completely unsubstantiated garbage like:

"You don't build a city by making tourist attractions. "

Guess what: Las Vegas built a city with only one "tourist attraction"...GAMBLING. Good thing they didn't know you had already said it was impossible, right?

Speaking of blowing it out of your ass, another completely unsibstantiated claim:

"You build a city by attracting residents, then making tourist attractions to aid the economy. "

FYI, NO's biggest need right now is to re-establish itself as a city with the kind of enjoyable diversions it used to have... french quarter tourist traps and also the sports centers.

It amazes me you accuse me of talking out of my ass when you know less about New Orleans than FEMA does.

I heard last night FEMA sent a rescue team to hawaii...... not because they heard there was an eathquake, but because they just heard it had been bombed by the japanese.