Landowners in flood plain file lawsuit over flooding

[rawhide]

I realize Katrina was a more devastating event and much of that was due to hitting a large metro area with a higher concentration of poor people. But the response and reaction of the affected people was markedly different. Sure some of that is due to the sheer number affected in the NO area but I don't see how a person can deny the nanny state mindsight prevalent. I am not "blaming" those people for being poor. I am simply trying to point out that people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything. It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting.

Most of NOLA was not "depending on the Gov" There are a ton of 'working poor' people who work at least as hard as you do, with a lot less to show for it, and often receive nothing from the gov. And what little they had was destroyed, with no money to 'get out of town' to go.... where? Packing up and leaving the state for a few days, with a cost in the thousands of dollars is simply not an option. Try walking in someone else's shoes.

 

You want to blame someone, blame American Business Culture. Make money for the top dogs and stock holders while the Gov picks up part of the employees' tab to get by, to protect those profits rather than pay living wages.

So don't assign any culpability to the government. Wow

[JJ Husker]

 

You're not blaming the people for being poor, you're just blaming them for being poor.

 

Acknowledging the reality of being poor in the inner city is a far cry from blaming people for being poor but whatever makes you feel good.

 

The "reality" of being poor that you are acknowledging is "people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything." That's not blaming people for being poor? "It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting." That's not blaming people for being poor? I understand that you are wanting to sound magnanimous, like you aren't really "blaming" the people of New Orleans, but your choice of words betrays you.

 

No, both of those bolded statements are not "blaming" people for being poor. I'm not sure how you're reading that to take it that way. I accept those claims as being generally true and accurate. If you want to disagree with that, fine, but don't twist it into something it's not. Is it your position that a high level of dependency does not beget even deeper dependency?

 

The angle I am taking here can be summarized with; Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and he'll feed himself for life. That's not blaming the guy that needs to be given a fish. It's simply a commentary on how things really are. If I'm blaming anyone or anything it would be the system that makes it extremely tough to break the cycle of poverty and virtually assures deeper dependency. And, IMO, that situation did contribute greatly to what we saw take place NOLA.

[tschu]

Yeah, that old system we had before welfare programs were introduced, that just worked wonders for the poverty-stricken! Everyone got off their lazy asses and got to work!

[strigori]

I realize Katrina was a more devastating event and much of that was due to hitting a large metro area with a higher concentration of poor people. But the response and reaction of the affected people was markedly different. Sure some of that is due to the sheer number affected in the NO area but I don't see how a person can deny the nanny state mindsight prevalent. I am not "blaming" those people for being poor. I am simply trying to point out that people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything. It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting.

Most of NOLA was not "depending on the Gov" There are a ton of 'working poor' people who work at least as hard as you do, with a lot less to show for it, and often receive nothing from the gov. And what little they had was destroyed, with no money to 'get out of town' to go.... where? Packing up and leaving the state for a few days, with a cost in the thousands of dollars is simply not an option. Try walking in someone else's shoes.

 

You want to blame someone, blame American Business Culture. Make money for the top dogs and stock holders while the Gov picks up part of the employees' tab to get by, to protect those profits rather than pay living wages.

So don't assign any culpability to the government. Wow

Culpability to what? More than one idea in there.

[tschu]

Interested in JJ's detailed and fully planned-out thoughts on how to solve poverty in America.

 

Conservatives: If we lower taxes for the rich, make sure capital gains taxes and offshore banking loopholes ensure that the rich pay less taxes than the middle class, refuse to raise the minimum wage, refuse to provide welfare assistance, and deregulate big business so that corporations can take even greater advantage of the lower class, somehow that formula is the answer?

 

Think that through for just a minute or two.

[tschu]

With respect to the original discussion, this is not a question of dependence or laziness or whatever dumb narrative you try to attach to it. You have a very, very poor population of inner-city people, who do not own transportation because they use public transport and live within walking distance of everything that they need. They do not have the money or means to escape the city. They are suddenly trapped in a toxic sludgewater hell, with no food or fresh water or electricity for literally hundreds of miles around. This differs from a flood in a rural area (where even the very poor own a sh**ty car and can drive 5 miles to get away from the flood zone, go to the next town over and get food and water, etc) for a thousand reasons. It is not indicative of some systemic issue with welfare or whatever it is that you're trying to argue. Conservative talking point yadayadayada without ever providing a reasonable solution for the problem; merely just bashing welfare (or, government assistance of stranded hurricane victims lolololol) for really no reason other than to spread talking points. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

[Junior]

No, both of those bolded statements are not "blaming" people for being poor. I'm not sure how you're reading that to take it that way. I accept those claims as being generally true and accurate. If you want to disagree with that, fine, but don't twist it into something it's not. Is it your position that a high level of dependency does not beget even deeper dependency?

 

The angle I am taking here can be summarized with; Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and he'll feed himself for life. That's not blaming the guy that needs to be given a fish. It's simply a commentary on how things really are. If I'm blaming anyone or anything it would be the system that makes it extremely tough to break the cycle of poverty and virtually assures deeper dependency. And, IMO, that situation did contribute greatly to what we saw take place NOLA.

 

You've made a very clear delineation. Being poor in the inner city causes dependency. The people of the west do it themselves. So what's the difference?

[rawhide]

I realize Katrina was a more devastating event and much of that was due to hitting a large metro area with a higher concentration of poor people. But the response and reaction of the affected people was markedly different. Sure some of that is due to the sheer number affected in the NO area but I don't see how a person can deny the nanny state mindsight prevalent. I am not "blaming" those people for being poor. I am simply trying to point out that people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything. It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting.

Most of NOLA was not "depending on the Gov" There are a ton of 'working poor' people who work at least as hard as you do, with a lot less to show for it, and often receive nothing from the gov. And what little they had was destroyed, with no money to 'get out of town' to go.... where? Packing up and leaving the state for a few days, with a cost in the thousands of dollars is simply not an option. Try walking in someone else's shoes.

 

You want to blame someone, blame American Business Culture. Make money for the top dogs and stock holders while the Gov picks up part of the employees' tab to get by, to protect those profits rather than pay living wages.

So don't assign any culpability to the government. Wow

Culpability to what? More than one idea in there.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/justice/louisiana-nagin-convicted/

When government officials are more worried about their own income than that of their constituency; there might be a problem.

Grading the response of NOLA government officials both past and present for emergency response planning and implementation:

http://www.chron.com/news/hurricanes/article/New-Orleans-strayed-from-evacuation-plan-1491205.php

[Junior]

After Katrina, our government stood by to watch a city falling apart. They told people to go to the Superdome and then left them there without food, water, or a way to get out. I saw things on TV that I never thought I'd see in an American city.

 

This article touches on a few of those things.

http://www.thenation.com/article/katrinas-hidden-race-war#

 

Algiers Point has always been somewhat isolated: it's perched on the west bank of the Mississippi River, linked to the core of the city only by a ferry line and twin gray steel bridges. When the hurricane descended on Louisiana, Algiers Point got off relatively easy. While wide swaths of New Orleans were deluged, the levees ringing Algiers Point withstood the Mississippi's surging currents, preventing flooding; most homes and businesses in the area survived intact. As word spread that the area was dry, desperate people began heading toward the west bank, some walking over bridges, others traveling by boat. The National Guard soon designated the Algiers Point ferry landing an official evacuation site. Rescuers from the Coast Guard and other agencies brought flood victims to the ferry terminal, where soldiers loaded them onto buses headed for Texas.

 

Facing an influx of refugees, the residents of Algiers Point could have pulled together food, water and medical supplies for the flood victims. Instead, a group of white residents, convinced that crime would arrive with the human exodus, sought to seal off the area, blocking the roads in and out of the neighborhood by dragging lumber and downed trees into the streets. They stockpiled handguns, assault rifles, shotguns and at least one Uzi and began patrolling the streets in pickup trucks and SUVs. The newly formed militia, a loose band of about fifteen to thirty residents, most of them men, all of them white, was looking for thieves, outlaws or, as one member put it, anyone who simply "didn't belong."

...

 

Surrounded by a crowd of sunburned white Algiers Point locals at a barbeque held not long after the hurricane, [militia member Wayne Janak] smiles and tells the camera, "It was great! It was like pheasant season in South Dakota. If it moved, you shot it." A native of Chicago, Janak also boasts of becoming a true Southerner, saying, "I am no longer a Yankee. I earned my wings." A white woman standing next to him adds, "He understands the N-word now." In this neighborhood, she continues, "we take care of our own."

 

So while the poor, inner city mooches were trying to get out, trying to leave... they were being gunned down in the streets by their fellow citizens. But hey, if they hadn't become so reliant on the government, they wouldn't have been in that mess to begin with, amiright?

[JJ Husker]

Interested in JJ's detailed and fully planned-out thoughts on how to solve poverty in America.

 

Conservatives: If we lower taxes for the rich, make sure capital gains taxes and offshore banking loopholes ensure that the rich pay less taxes than the middle class, refuse to raise the minimum wage, refuse to provide welfare assistance, and deregulate big business so that corporations can take even greater advantage of the lower class, somehow that formula is the answer?

 

Think that through for just a minute or two.

 

If you can find anywhere I've said those are the answers, I would appreciate it if you could show it to me. Maybe if you (and Junior) didn't cling so tightly to preconceived notions you wouldn't struggle so hard with some differing perspectives. Talk about ignorance breeding ignorance....

 

Yes, I said that dependency begets even deeper dependency. That does not mean that I simply think stopping welfare payments is the answer. Although, in some cases, I do believe there are much better long term solutions for poverty than paying healthy, able bodied people to do nothing. I think our current economic situation, inner city conditions, and the ideology that the few (regardless of capability) always need to be taken of by the many, contributes to an attitude, by some, that we, they, somebody other than themselves are responsible for everything that impacts their life. I don't think that is a particularly healthy situation and it doesn't help capable people become self sufficient. My problem lies with the system that would rather spend $100 to perpetuate dependency rather than spend that $100 to truly help those people escape poverty. I don't feel the lone factor of living in a sh**ty location should relegate a person to life long dependency. Train them, move them, help them break free.....don't just say "here's your monthly check" now go back to your crappy life for 30 days.

 

And BTW, I do not subscribe to any of that other bullsh#t you attributed to being my position. I don't want the rich to have lower capital gains taxes and banking loopholes so they pay less than the middle class. I don't necessarily have a problem with raising the minimum wage to a livable level, I just don't see where raising it (and the inevitable increased costs of goods and services) really benefits poor people. And the only deregulation of business I am for would be to help business thrive in this country, so that it can in turn employ more people and pay higher wages. I can't help it that currently a greedy few are abusing our system. Raise taxes and eliminate loopholes for the richest 5% or 10%, won't hurt my feelings.

[strigori]

I realize Katrina was a more devastating event and much of that was due to hitting a large metro area with a higher concentration of poor people. But the response and reaction of the affected people was markedly different. Sure some of that is due to the sheer number affected in the NO area but I don't see how a person can deny the nanny state mindsight prevalent. I am not "blaming" those people for being poor. I am simply trying to point out that people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything. It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting.

Most of NOLA was not "depending on the Gov" There are a ton of 'working poor' people who work at least as hard as you do, with a lot less to show for it, and often receive nothing from the gov. And what little they had was destroyed, with no money to 'get out of town' to go.... where? Packing up and leaving the state for a few days, with a cost in the thousands of dollars is simply not an option. Try walking in someone else's shoes.

 

You want to blame someone, blame American Business Culture. Make money for the top dogs and stock holders while the Gov picks up part of the employees' tab to get by, to protect those profits rather than pay living wages.

So don't assign any culpability to the government. Wow

Culpability to what? More than one idea in there.

http://www.cnn.com/2...agin-convicted/

When government officials are more worried about their own income than that of their constituency; there might be a problem.

Grading the response of NOLA government officials both past and present for emergency response planning and implementation:

http://www.chron.com...lan-1491205.php

No where did I absolve the response to Katrina. Or the degradation of the systems designed to prevent the disaster. And those issues tie into the issues with the politicians protecting their own interests. There are a number of very simple things we could institute to suck most of the corporate money out of politics, and prevent politicians from getting rich from being in office.

 

Greed is the number one problem we have right now, and every single 'Christian' vote for the GOP is hypocritical beyond words.

[rawhide]

Where did the Christian GOP thing come from. Feelin' guilty?

[HSKR]

Concerning the discussion pre-Katrina threadjack, I agree with the sentiment that there wasn't anything that could have been done to prevent the flooding. From what I have read, every reservoir could have been empty and the Mo still would have flooded. The problem is, they weren't and this is why there is a lawsuit. This is nothing more then a power struggle over who gets a say on the future water release, Ag interests, property interests, habitat and recreation interests. It's not about what happened, it's about who gets protected later.

[tschu]

Yes, I said that dependency begets even deeper dependency. That does not mean that I simply think stopping welfare payments is the answer. Although, in some cases, I do believe there are much better long term solutions for poverty than paying healthy, able bodied people to do nothing. I think our current economic situation, inner city conditions, and the ideology that the few (regardless of capability) always need to be taken of by the many, contributes to an attitude, by some, that we, they, somebody other than themselves are responsible for everything that impacts their life. I don't think that is a particularly healthy situation and it doesn't help capable people become self sufficient. My problem lies with the system that would rather spend $100 to perpetuate dependency rather than spend that $100 to truly help those people escape poverty. I don't feel the lone factor of living in a sh**ty location should relegate a person to life long dependency. Train them, move them, help them break free.....don't just say "here's your monthly check" now go back to your crappy life for 30 days.

 

Okay, so all you've done here is said what you've already said, which is that you DON'T feel that this is a good part of the solution. We already get that.

 

So what is your plan? What is your solution? How are you going to "help them break free?"

[strigori]

Where did the Christian GOP thing come from. Feelin' guilty?

Comes from greed being the major issue, the Bible condemning greed consistently from beginning to end, and the GOP being the unrepentant champions that greed is not only good, but sanctioned by God.