TOPICS:
JAN 19, 2009 06:41 PM
JAN 19, 2009 06:43 PM
DJForce said:
Where are your sources? You really expect me to believe "the good guys" left everytime a republican was in office, and then returned when a democrat assumed control?
Bush intentionally hired incompetant hacks? Who? Which ones? Why do you believe they were any less competant than others? Took away their status? People quit because they weren't a cabnit-level agency?
And you blame FEMA, but yet they weren't allowed to assume control? The state governments didn't do such a great job either. Why no blame there?
You are throwing out these 'facts' without any support. Where are your sources???
And again, even if all you say is true, that still does not forgive the mayor and governor.
I have answered some of your arguments. Now answer this. Are the governor, mayor, and local officials blameless in this disaster? Why do you avoid this simple yes or no question. Scared... 
Again, for the zillionth time, read the prior posts. The sources are cited. It's not my problem you don't bother to read the thread.
JAN 19, 2009 07:16 PM
JAN 19, 2009 07:21 PM
JAN 19, 2009 07:23 PM
JAN 19, 2009 07:30 PM
Orders of magnitude math ....
$250 million is roughly 3.2% of Louisiana's current budget of $7.7 billion, which would have been close to the 4.2% of the Army Corps of Engineer's 2005 budget of $6 billion.
In 2007 the US government collected $2570 billion, and $150 million is 0.0097% of that figure (and the entire Corp's budget is 0.234%).
The estimated cost incurred by hurricane Katrina is $81.2 billion overall. This chunk of money is 3.16% of 2007's entire federal collections.
I didn't run across a state-by-state breakdown, but did find a September 26th, 2008 article in the Cayman New News Online breaking down the top five costliest hurricanes.
Katrina's damage total was more than twice that of Andrew's.
I have no numbers indicating the differential cost between the physical damage Katrina would likely have caused if the levees held, and how much it ended up costing, but lets say $10 billion is a reasonable, and probably even a conservative guess.
Question: Which is a better usage of taxpayer money - A, building and maintaining a levee system strong enough to survive plus a hefty margin, or B, one just barely capable, and then trim off the maintenance budget until catastrophic failure ensues?
If the dead could speak I'd bet they'd go with option A.
Government Executive, "Ex-Army Corps officials say budget cuts imperiled flood mitigation efforts"
Washington Post, "Critics Say Bush Undercut New Orleans Flood Control"
JAN 19, 2009 07:51 PM
JAN 19, 2009 07:54 PM
BellyJack said:
Orders of magnitude math ....
$250 million is roughly 3.2% of Louisiana's current budget of $7.7 billion, which would have been close to the 4.2% of the Army Corps of Engineer's 2005 budget of $6 billion.
In 2007 the US government collected $2570 billion, and $150 million is 0.0097% of that figure (and the entire Corp's budget is 0.234%).
The estimated cost incurred by hurricane Katrina is $81.2 billion overall. This chunk of money is 3.16% of 2007's entire federal collections.
I didn't run across a state-by-state breakdown, but did find a September 26th, 2008 article in the Cayman New News Online breaking down the top five costliest hurricanes.
Katrina's damage total was more than twice that of Andrew's.
I have no numbers indicating the differential cost between the physical damage Katrina would likely have caused if the levees held, and how much it ended up costing, but lets say $10 billion is a reasonable, and probably even a conservative guess.
Question: Which is a better usage of taxpayer money - A, building and maintaining a levee system strong enough to survive plus a hefty margin, or B, one just barely capable, and then trim off the maintenance budget until catastrophic failure ensues?
If the dead could speak I'd bet they'd go with option A.
Government Executive, "Ex-Army Corps officials say budget cuts imperiled flood mitigation efforts"
Washington Post, "Critics Say Bush Undercut New Orleans Flood Control"
Yes, all that is true. Hindsight is always 20/20. There are always things that require money. $250 million is even a smaller fraction of the world GDP. Why didn't the Canadians or the Germans chip in to help. This is not the point. The point is the money could have been raised if it were deemen important. Are you people telling me that the state and local governments knew people would die, yet said "well, we'll just blame it on 'ole W.". If they did, they are criminals.
JAN 19, 2009 07:55 PM
DJForce said:
BellyJack said:
Orders of magnitude math ....
$250 million is roughly 3.2% of Louisiana's current budget of $7.7 billion, which would have been close to the 4.2% of the Army Corps of Engineer's 2005 budget of $6 billion.
In 2007 the US government collected $2570 billion, and $150 million is 0.0097% of that figure (and the entire Corp's budget is 0.234%).
The estimated cost incurred by hurricane Katrina is $81.2 billion overall. This chunk of money is 3.16% of 2007's entire federal collections.
I didn't run across a state-by-state breakdown, but did find a September 26th, 2008 article in the Cayman New News Online breaking down the top five costliest hurricanes.
Katrina's damage total was more than twice that of Andrew's.
I have no numbers indicating the differential cost between the physical damage Katrina would likely have caused if the levees held, and how much it ended up costing, but lets say $10 billion is a reasonable, and probably even a conservative guess.
Question: Which is a better usage of taxpayer money - A, building and maintaining a levee system strong enough to survive plus a hefty margin, or B, one just barely capable, and then trim off the maintenance budget until catastrophic failure ensues?
If the dead could speak I'd bet they'd go with option A.
Government Executive, "Ex-Army Corps officials say budget cuts imperiled flood mitigation efforts"
Washington Post, "Critics Say Bush Undercut New Orleans Flood Control"
Yes, all that is true. Hindsight is always 20/20. There are always things that require money. $250 million is even a smaller fraction of the world GDP. Why didn't the Canadians or the Germans chip in to help. This is not the point. The point is the money could have been raised if it were thought important. Are you people telling me that the state and local governments knew people would die, yet said "well, we'll just blame it on 'ole W.". If they did, they are criminals.
JAN 19, 2009 07:56 PM
JAN 19, 2009 08:01 PM
JAN 19, 2009 08:16 PM
JAN 19, 2009 08:19 PM
OK, you can hate Bush and put every bad things (and none of the good) on his shoulders if you want. You can ignore all the evidence of other governmental failings if you want. It's still a free country (thank you Military and Bush for that). 
'till the next time... I have to go to sleep
And next time, try not to get so worked up over a political exchange. Everything's gonna be ok 
JAN 19, 2009 08:19 PM
DJForce said:
BellyJack said:
Orders of magnitude math ....
$250 million is roughly 3.2% of Louisiana's current budget of $7.7 billion, which would have been close to the 4.2% of the Army Corps of Engineer's 2005 budget of $6 billion.
In 2007 the US government collected $2570 billion, and $150 million is 0.0097% of that figure (and the entire Corp's budget is 0.234%).
The estimated cost incurred by hurricane Katrina is $81.2 billion overall. This chunk of money is 3.16% of 2007's entire federal collections.
I didn't run across a state-by-state breakdown, but did find a September 26th, 2008 article in the Cayman New News Online breaking down the top five costliest hurricanes.
Katrina's damage total was more than twice that of Andrew's.
I have no numbers indicating the differential cost between the physical damage Katrina would likely have caused if the levees held, and how much it ended up costing, but lets say $10 billion is a reasonable, and probably even a conservative guess.
Question: Which is a better usage of taxpayer money - A, building and maintaining a levee system strong enough to survive plus a hefty margin, or B, one just barely capable, and then trim off the maintenance budget until catastrophic failure ensues?
If the dead could speak I'd bet they'd go with option A.
Government Executive, "Ex-Army Corps officials say budget cuts imperiled flood mitigation efforts"
Washington Post, "Critics Say Bush Undercut New Orleans Flood Control"
Yes, all that is true. Hindsight is always 20/20. There are always things that require money. $250 million is even a smaller fraction of the world GDP. Why didn't the Canadians or the Germans chip in to help. This is not the point. The point is the money could have been raised if it were deemen important. Are you people telling me that the state and local governments knew people would die, yet said "well, we'll just blame it on 'ole W.". If they did, they are criminals.
Why didn't you pay the money? Why didn't monkeys fly out of your ass with the money? Do you understand how ridiculous what you're saying is?
You AGAIN ignore facts and make up ridiculous shit off the top of your head. AGAIN you show you have no idea how government works.
I'm not getting into the state and local failures yet because you insist on ignoring the facts raised so far and I'm not letting you off the hook for the ridiculous crap you've posted so far. No shifting goalposts before we're done with the topic at hand.
Read a book. Learn something. Get smarter.
JAN 19, 2009 08:19 PM
Stiles said:
DJForce said:
You mean to tell me that if the state or the city raised the money, the Army Corps of Engineers would not take it. Now THAT would be a scandle...
For the zillionth time, the army corps of engineers is federal. Get that through your head. FEDERAL. They are not on the state payroll. They do not take state money.
Christ you are dense.
...resisting the temtation to stoop to personal insults ... 
JAN 19, 2009 08:21 PM
JAN 19, 2009 08:24 PM
DJForce said:
OK, you can hate Bush and put every bad things (and none of the good) on his shoulders if you want. You can ignore all the evidence of other governmental failings if you want. It's still a free country (thank you Military and Bush for that).
'till the next time... I have to go to sleep
And next time, try not to get so worked up over a political exchange. Everything's gonna be ok
Get some reading comprehension, post some intelligent things, and learn to form a coherent argument.
If you believe everything is going to be OK, I want some of what you're smoking. Hopefully the incoming administration can undo in the next four years most of what the Bush administration has done in the last eight. It's a hard task but Obama and his capable appointees are up to it.
JAN 19, 2009 08:25 PM
DJForce said:
Stiles said:
DJForce said:
You mean to tell me that if the state or the city raised the money, the Army Corps of Engineers would not take it. Now THAT would be a scandle...
For the zillionth time, the army corps of engineers is federal. Get that through your head. FEDERAL. They are not on the state payroll. They do not take state money.
Christ you are dense.
...resisting the temtation to stoop to personal insults ...
It's not an insult, it's a cold hard fact, proven by your own posts.
If you don't like it, do better. The power is in your hands.
JAN 19, 2009 11:41 PM
JAN 20, 2009 01:19 AM
JAN 20, 2009 01:44 AM
JAN 20, 2009 04:05 AM
I am so excited this horrible, smug, idiot fuckbag is leaving. I dream of seeing him in leg-irons one day but know that is just a dream ... only little people go to jail in this "democracy." Never want to see this jackass's beady-eyed little rat phizz again.
And as for Dick Cheney ... 
DJForce
Summerville, SC
November 2008
JAN 19, 2009 06:39 PM